Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Glamorganshire Canal Company Bill.

Bill committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

MARRIED QUARTERS.

Mr. HICKS: 1.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Offic how many married couples in the Army are living in buildings without private water-closet accommodation; whether any attempts are being made to give all married couples lavatory and water-closet accommodation in their dwellings; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to give these sanitary facilities to every family in the Army?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Douglas Hacking): It is the intention to provide separate water-closet accommodation, and eventually separate bathrooms, for all married couples on the married quarters' roll who live in barracks. This is being done gradually, and these improvements are included in all new constructions. I could not give the precise number of cases which are outstanding without calling for reports: but I am satisfied that good progress is being made.

HUTS.

Mr. HICKS: 2.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office the number of troops still housed in huts; what progress has been made in replacing huts by permanent buildings; and whether any men are still housed in huts which, in the opinion of the Army experts, are unsuited for habitation?

Mr. HACKING: Apart from hutments which have been specially reconstructed, there are approximately 12,500 men who are housed in huts or hutted buildings in stations at home and overseas, excluding India. It is the policy of the War Office to replace these buildings, and more than £700,000 has been expended in the last five years in this connection; but many years must necessarily elapse before all the hutted accommodation can be replaced. I am not aware of any cases of troops living in hutted accommodation which should be condemned as unsuited for habitation.

WEST KENT REGIMENT (PRIVATE J. W. HUTCHINGS).

Mr. HICKS: 3.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware of the serious illness of Private J. W. Hutchings, No. 6,343,262, the Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment, following the administration of a local anaesthetic in the course of teeth extraction; what was the nature of the substance injected; the number of other soldiers similarly treated; whether any fatalities have occurred in consequence; and whether any disciplinary action is proposed to be taken in the matter?

Mr. HACKING: I am aware of the circumstances of this regrettable case. Owing to a grave mistake, turpentine was injected instead of the proper local anaesthetic. No other soldiers were similarly treated. Suitable disciplinary action in the matter has been taken, and special instructions have been issued designed to exclude the possibility of any similar mistake occurring in future. I am happy to say that the soldier's general health is now reported to be good.

Mr. HICKS: In the event of the anaesthetic or whatever was administered to this soldier causing him bad health afterwards, is it within the power of the War Office to meet any liabilities which may be incurred in that way? I raise
this question, because I understand that there has been some attempt to suggest that the treatment which has been meted out to this man is final and that nothing further will be done.

Mr. HACKING: If any permanent disability results from this unfortunate mistake, undoubtedly compensation will have to be considered. In the meantime, I may say that a, sum of, I think, £18 has been expended in the form of compensation to the man's parents in order that they should be able to visit their son.

Mr. GEORGE HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the anaesthetic was administered by a qualified man?

Mr. HACKING: Yes, Sir, it was. This was a mistake which would take a great deal of explanation before the House, but, if any hon. Member is interested, I shall be glad to let him know how it occurred.

HIS MAJESTY'S SILVER JUBILEE.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any special arrangements are being made and, if so, of what nature to enable Scotland to demonstrate its loyalty to the Royal Family during the forthcoming Jubilee celebrations?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir Godfrey Collins): It has been arranged that His Royal Highness the Duke of York will represent The King at Edinburgh on Saturday, 11th May, and a programme for the visit of His Royal Highness is in course of preparation. As announced in this House on 30th July last, it is His Majesty's desire that the Silver Jubilee celebrations should be on a local basis, and programmes of celebrations are being made locally.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is it a fact, as reported in the Press to-day, that the day selected to commemorate the accession of His Majesty is already a holiday with pay in Scotland for a considerable number of the people there?

Sir G. COLLINS: It is a bank holiday, but that term has a different meaning in Scotland from what it usually has in England.

Mr. G. HALL: 52.
asked the Minister of Labour whether all unemployed persons will be given an additional day's benefit on the occasion of His Majesty's Jubilee in May of this year?

Mr. LOGAN: 44.
asked the Minister of Labour whether be is prepared to sanction the increase of 3s. to each adult, and 2s. for each child, in receipt of unemployment benefit during Royal Jubilee week?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The rates and conditions of benefit are prescribed by the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and I have no power to vary them.

Mr. HALL: Can no exception be made in the circumstances?

Mr. STANLEY: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the rates are laid down by statute.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it proposed to grant any concession of any kind to unemployed men to celebrate the Jubilee?

Mr. STANLEY: The hon. Member had better put a question down.

Mr. T. SMITH: 68.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether official responsibility is being taken for the Jubilee thanksgiving service in Hyde Park, on Sunday, 12th May, which is being organised by a daily newspaper; and whether he will see that all such religious services, if held, shall be free from all suspicion of exploitation for publicity purposes?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): This service is not part of the official Jubilee celebrations, but has been agreed to under the ordinary regulations governing the holding of meetings in Hyde Park. I am told that there will be no external evidence of publicity

SCOTLAND (FISHING INDUSTRY).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can make a statement as to the vessels to be provided for policing northern waters under the Fishery Board for Scotland, and as to the ports on which they will be based?

Sir G. COLLINS: It is not proposed permanently to allocate particular vessels to particular areas when the new vessels are completed, but full consideration will be given to the requirements of northern waters. At present, in addition to the "Norna" and the "Vaila," which usually patrol northern waters, a hired drifter is temporarily stationed in Shetland, and one of His Majesty's ships is usually stationed in Shetland during the summer herring fishing season.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he expects the new vessels to be ready for commission, and, when they are ready for commission, is it intended to consider basing them on some place nearer to their scene of operations than the present base?

Sir G. COLLINS: I am afraid I cannot give an answer to the first part of the question. When these vessels are completed the whole matter will come up for final review.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in order that first-hand knowledge may be obtained and placed on record, he will ask the sheriff who is now examining the drift-ringnet controversy in the Firth of Forth, to take evidence at the Fife fishing villages during the present fishing season?

Sir G. COLLINS: The procedure to be followed is of course a matter to be decided by the commissioner appointed to hold the inquiry and I understand that he has already initiated meetings for the purpose of arranging it with the interests concerned. I have, however, conveyed my hon. Friend's suggestion to him.

Captain McEWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to amplify the suggestion to the sheriff by reminding him that there are equally important interests existing on the south side of the Firth of Forth?

Sir G. COLLINS: I will see that the interests referred to by my hon. Friend are brought to the notice of the sheriff.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

COLLIERY COMPANIES (MERGER).

Mr. MAINWARING: 10
asked the Secretary for Mines (1)
whether he can enumerate the individual colliery companies separately operating during the year 1920 in the area now covered by the newly formed merger, Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, together with the amount of total capital authorised and issued in each case;
(2) how many pits were in active operation during the year 1920 within the area controlled by the Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries; how many were in production during 1934; and how many closed down or idle;
(3) how many men were employed at the whole of the pits operating in the area of the Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries, together with their output for the year 1920, and the same information in respect to the collieries operating in 1934?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the 27 colliery companies separately operating during the year 1920 in the area now covered by the newly formed merger. These companies were operating 121 pits in that year. Of these 121 pits, 68 were in production in 1934 and 53 were closed down or idle. In addition 8 pits, opened since 1920, were in production in 1934. In 1920, 98,800 men were employed and the total output of coal was 16,403,000 tons, the figures for 1934 being 39,300 men and 11,217,000 tons. My Department has no information with regard to the capital of the original companies.

Following are the names of the colliery companies:
Albion Steam Coal Company, Limited.
Aberdare Graig Coal Company, Limited.
Blaenclydach Colliery Company, Limited.
Britannic Merthyr Coal Company, Limited.
Bwllfa and Merthyr Dare Steam Collieries (1891), Limited.
Cardiff Collieries, Limited.
Cwmamman Coal Company, Limited.
Cambrian Collieries, Limited.
Crawshay Brothers (Cyfartha), Limited.
Crynant Colliery Company, Limited.
D. Davis and Sons, Limited.
Duffryn Aberdare Colliery Company, Limited.
Great Western Colliery Company, Limited.
Glamorgan Coal Company, Limited.
929
Guest, Keen and Nettlefold, Limited.
Hill's Plymouth Company, Limited.
Imperial Navigation Coal Company, Limited.
Locketts Merthyr Collieries (1893), Limited.
D. R. Llewellyn.
Lewis Merthyr Consolidated Collieries, Limited.
Nixon's Navigation Company, Limited.
Naval Collieries (1897), Limited.
Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Company, Limited.
Rhymney Iron Company, Limited.
Taylors Navigation Steam Coal Company, Limited.
Troedyrhiw Coal Company.
Windsor Steam Coal Company (1901), Limited.

Mr. TINKER: 19.
asked the Secretary for Mines how many separate colliery companies in Lancashire have merged into one undertaking since 1926; and can he give the names of those who are at the present time employing 10,000 persons or more?

Mr. BROWN: There are five undertakings in Lancashire which are the result of amalgamations which have taken place since 1926. These amalgamations have involved 21 separate colliery companies. Of the five undertakings, Manchester Collieries Limited and the Wigan Coal Corporation, Limited, are employing at the present time 10,000 persons or more.

SHOT-FIRING.

Mr. GRUNDY: 13.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the recommendation of the commissioner in the report of the Bilsthorpe inquiry that all men should be withdrawn from the face during shot-firing, he is prepared to issue instructions that this recommendation shall in future to put into operation?

Mr. E. BROWN: This recommendation was to the effect that, so far as practicable, shots in face-rippings should be fired either between shifts or after withdrawing the workmen from the face in question. The inspectors will use their influence to secure that this procedure is followed so far as possible but, as recognised by the author of the report referred to, it is not practicable to adopt or enforce such a procedure universally.

Mr. T. SMITH: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether colliery managers have been circularised on this matter?

Mr. BROWN: Perhaps the hon. Member would put down that question.

Mr. GRUNDY: 14.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he proposes issuing instructions to limit the number of shots to be fired by any one shotsman during one shift, thereby giving ample time for the shotsman to properly carry out the responsibilities imposed upon him by the Mines Act, 1911, and its regulations?

Mr. BROWN: Special investigations by His Majesty's inspectors are in progress as to the numbers of shots which, under different conditions, can properly be fired per shift by deputies and shot-firers, respectively; and I am considering whether it is possible to frame a rule to secure some definite limitations of number which shall be reasonable and effective having regard to the widely varying circumstances.

Mr. GRUNDY: 15.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether, in view of the increasing number of shots being fired in the coal mines of the country, particularly shots fired in the coal, he will take steps to ensure that shot-firing shall be reduced to a minimum by utilising other means of bringing down coal?

Mr. BROWN: The total number of shots fired in coal mines has decreased of recent years and there has been some increase in the use of mechanical and other substitutes for shot-firing. It is the practice of the inspectors to encourage the use of suitable alternatives where possible and this practice will be continued.

ACCIDENTS.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS (for Mr. DAVID DAVIES): 17.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of accidents that occurred in the coal mines of the country for the year 1934, giving the number of fatal and non-fatal accidents separately?

Mr. E. BROWN: During the year 1934 1,068 persons were killed by accidents at mines under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and 3,175 persons were seriously injured. Particulars of the total number of persons disabled for more than three days are not yet available.

MOTOR INSURANCE COMPANIES (FAILURES).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the failure of four motor insurance companies since the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the consequent hardship which has been inflicted upon the policy holders in these companies and members of the general public, he proposes to make more frequent use of the Assurance Companies (Winding-up) Act, 1933, under which he has the power to examine the books of motor insurance companies and apply for compulsory winding-up orders in order to eliminate any remaining unsound companies?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. J. Davies) on 19th February, the Board of Trade will not fail to take action whenever, on the information available, there is reason to believe that a company coming within the scope of the Act is insolvent.

Sir C. CAYZER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that his Department should take action before and not after these companies get into difficulties; and does he not think that a campaign on the lines which I have ventured to suggest in this question might do something to eliminate unsound companies?

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is machinery available to him for the purposes of any action which he is prepared to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: A number of difficulties arise in taking action before insolvency is reached, and I should not like to answer a question on that subject without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

HOSIERY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. LYONS: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the imports of cotton stockings and, hose from Japan have increased in January, 1935, as compared with January, 1934, by 40,000 dozen pairs, or 36 per cent.; and
whether he is prepared to take any new steps to deal with this increasing importation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to my reply to his question on 13th November last, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. LYONS: Is it not a fact that unemployment in this industry is now greater than it was in November; and, in view of that unfortunate fact, will the right hon. Gentleman invite the attention of the Import Duties Advisory Committee to the power which they have to act immediately in the interests of trade and employment in the hosiery industry?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My answer to the previous question covers the points raised by my hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. LYONS: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the exports of artificial silk stockings and hose to British countries have declined in January, 1935, as compared with January, 1934, by 21,700 dozen pairs, or 60 per cent.; whether he has any information as to whether this decline is due to increasing competition from Japan; and, if so, whether he is prepared to make representations to British countries for increased protection for the British exporter against this competition?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware of the fact stated in the first part of the question. Nearly two-thirds of the decline occurred in respect of exports to the Irish Free State as the result of restrictions recently imposed on the imports of this class of hosiery into that country. I have no information as to the causes of the balance of the decline in January, but I would point out that up to the end of 1934 the aggregate exports to British countries other than the Irish Free State have shown successive annual increases in quantity since 1931.

Mr. LYONS: In view of the unfortunate exclusion by the Irish Free State of our industries, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the time is more than ripe for some action, in order to protect British employment in our home market, and to stop the great flow of imports which is putting thousands of people in this industry into great jeopardy as regards employment?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Those facts could certainly be laid before the Import Duties Advisory Committee as an argument for further duties.

Mr. LYONS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have power on their own initiative to act in the face of these unfortunate circumstances and need not wait for one industry to take its place in the queue after another in order to take action?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is open to them to make representations, and I have no doubt they will do so at once.

RUSSIAN TIMBER.

Mr. BOSSOM: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the temporary commercial agreement with Russia precludes the Government from limiting the amount of Russian timber imported into the United Kingdom, as was done last year, in order to enable Canada to increase her timber sales in this market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, Sir. Article 1 of the Temporary Commercial Agreement with Russia provides that each party will accord most-favoured-nation treatment to the goods of the other, but Article 2 provides that, in certain circumstances, this treatment may be withdrawn in respect of particular classes of commodities.

Mr. BOSSOM: 26.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that the fall clause in the timber contract now being negotiated with Russia frustrates the benefits arranged in the Ottawa Agreements, whether he will reconsider the Agreements?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now give particulars to the House of the communication which he has received from the Canadian Government with reference to the importation into Great Britain of Russian timber under a fall clause, and at prices with which it is impossible for Canada to compete; and what action is being taken by the British Government, in view of the fact that this is in contravention of Article 21 of the Ottawa Agreement?

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 33.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has yet come to any decision regarding the proposed contract
for the import of Russian timber in the current year by Timber Distributors, Limited; whether the quantity imported will be reduced from that imported in 1924; and whether the fall clause will be prohibited as in last year's contract?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As I have already informed the House, the questions raised by the contract between Timber Distributors, Limited, and the White Sea Timber Trust are at present receiving careful consideration. I will make a statement to the House at the earliest possible moment, but I fear I am not yet in a position to say when that will be.

Sir W. DAVISON: Can my right hon. Friend not say at once that the fall clause makes any preferences given under the Ottawa or any other agreement nugatory, and surely the Government can make up their mind at once and tell the House that the fall clause will not be allowed in contracts of this kind?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The fall clause, I think, was eliminated from contracts last year. That is one of the points now under discussion.

Sir A. KNOX: In considering this contract, will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the fact that the Canadian mills are now working only 50 per cent. of their capacity and that the timber market in this country is considerably overstocked as compared with last year; also that Canada takes £19,500,000 of our exports and Russia only £3,500,000?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: We will take all the facts that are relevant into consideration.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think the Russian soft timber comes into serious conflict with the Canadian soft timber?

FLOUR.

Mr. GLOSSOP: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of flour imported from foreign countries during the last three months for which figures are available; and similar figures for the corresponding periods in 1932 and 1933?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: During the three months ended January, 1935, the imports of wheat meal and flour consigned from foreign countries amounted to 658,000 cwt. The corresponding figure for the
period ended January, 1933, was 461,000 cwt. and for that ended January, 1934, 784,000 cwt.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable concern caused in agricultural circles as a result of the increased importation of flour and meal in the last 12 months, and would it not be desirable to import the wheat into this country and to mill it here so that farmers could have the benefit of the offal?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is desirable that there should be as much flour and, may I add, as much offal available for our internal purposes as possible.

Mr. PIKE: Will my right hon. Friend direct his last reply to the activities in this commodity by the co-operative societies?

DISTRIBUTION.

Mr. MABANE: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is yet in a position to announce that any form of inquiry is to be set up to examine the problem of distribution; and whether his attention has been drawn to the widespread demand throughout the country that the problem of distribution should receive investigation?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I fear that I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to a similar question by my hon. Friend on the 6th November last.

Mr. MABANE: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to the speech made yesterday by Mr. Marquis who is an authority in the industry, in which he recommends an impartial inquiry as being much preferable to indiscriminate condemnation or indiscriminate interference by a Government department in this business of distribution?

Mr, RUNCIMAN: Yes, I read Mr. Marquis's speech with great interest, and I shall certainly take both it and the views of my hon. Friend into account.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the strongest complaints against the distributive trade in this country is of the very low wages paid to some of the assistants?

GREY TEXTILE GOODS (RE-EXPORTS).

Mr. THORP: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that grey textile goods are being imported into this country free of duty for the purpose of being subjected to a slight process in this country and then re-exported as British goods; whether he can state the quantity so admitted during the year 1934; and whether he proposes to take any and, if so, what steps to prevent the continuation of this practice?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Following the earlier representations made by trade organisations in Lancashire, this question, in its various aspects, was fully discussed with a recent deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, and the whole matter is now under active consideration. In regard to the second part of the question, the quantity of grey cotton piece goods imported in 1934 and entered for delivery for process and subsequent re-exportation was 5,523,600 square yards, valued at £65,600.

BACON (IMPORT REGULATION).

Mr. LEONARD: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any new arrangements in connection with the quantitative regulation of imports of bacon, hams, and pork from foreign countries have yet been made after negotiations with the Bacon Marketing Board?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The arrangement contemplated by paragraph 7 (b) of the Bacon (Import Regulation) Order, 1934, has been revised this year in consultation with the Bacon Marketing Board and the representatives of foreign Governments. As from 1st January, imports of bacon (as defined in the Order) from the five main foreign exporting countries are regulated on the basis of fortnightly periods, instead of on the basis of four weekly periods.

TURKEY (NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. WHITE: 34.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to report any progress in the negotiations for the settlement of our commercial relations with Turkey?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The negotiations are proceeding. I regret that for the present I am not in a position to make any more detailed statement.

BULGARIA.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 38.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that existing frozen Leva balances belonging to British firms in the National Bank of Bulgaria amount to nearly 2200,000; and whether he anticipates that any arrangements will be made in the near future to free these balances?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am aware that considerable sums have accumulated in the Bulgarian National Bank to the credit of British firms, and I am informed that these balances are being slowly liquidated. The matter is being carefully watched, and no opportunity will be lost of affording to United Kingdom traders such assistance as may be possible.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 39.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the difficulties of British merchants trading with Bulgaria, owing to the uncertainty regarding the amount of import quotas which are to be received and to the delay in getting these quotas allotted and confirmed; and whether he will take steps to bring this matter to the notice of the Bulgarian Government with a view to an early remedy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir, the matter is under consideration.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: Will my right hon. Friend consider making representations that in future the quotas should be allotted on a yearly basis instead of quarterly, and allotted to exporters rather than to consignees?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I shall certainly consider that point.

COMMODITY EXCHANGES.

Major NATHAN: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider the initiation of an inquiry, by select committee or other appropriate machinery, into the organisation, control, and management of the Metal Exchange, Baltic, and other commodity exchanges with a view to ensuring such organisation, control, and management as may be best designed to serve the public interest?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member
for West Fulham (Sir C. Cobb) on Tuesday last.

IMPORT DUTIES (EXPORTED PLATES)

Mr. R. T. EVANS: 50.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the reduction in British exports of tinned, terne, and other coated plates since 1932; and whether, seeing that the Import Duties Advisory Committee have imposed a tariff of 33⅓ per cent. on imported bars, he will now take steps to secure a drawback of duty in respect of exported plates?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware that there was a decline of about 14 per cent. in the quantity of coated plates and sheets of United Kingdom manufacture exported in 1934, as compared with 1932. The question whether a drawback scheme in this case would be in the national interest is one in the first instance for the Import Duties Advisory Committee under Section 9 of the Finance Act, 1932, and I have no doubt that they will give full consideration to the position disclosed by the trade statistics in the light of the many important interests involved.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: Have any complaints been received as to the price effect of the duty of 33⅓ per cent.?

Mr. COOPER: Not so far as I am aware.

MESSRS. JAMES AND SHAKE SPEARE, LIMITED (INQUIRY).

Sir CYRIL COBB: 29 and 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that the provision that the name of the real holder of shares in a limited liability company shall appear with his address on the records of Somerset House is now defeated by the device of registering shares in the name of a nominee company; and whether he proposes to take early steps to make good this defect in the operation of the law intended to protect the public against abuse of the facilities provided by limited liability;
(2) whether he is aware that the names and addresses of owners of shares held by nominee companies appear on the books of nominee companies; and will he take the necessary measures to ensure that in future, in the event of the transfer of
such shares from or to a nominee company, the names and addresses of the beneficial or other owners in the possession of the nominees be recorded on the transfer deed for identification of ownership in order that this information may appear upon the share registers at Somerset House?

Mr. JOHN WILMOT: 36.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that a large proportion of the shares of James and Shakespeare, Limited, were registered in the name of bank nominees; and whether, in view of the fact that this practice makes it impossible to discover who are beneficial owners, he will take steps for the purpose of ensuring that the returns of company shareholders disclose the names of the beneficial owners?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: 37.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the concealment of the names of nominees holding shares in Messrs. James and Shakespeare, he has considered the advisability of amending the Companies Act of 1929 to prevent further misuse of the law of limited liability in the promotion of gambling operations in the commodity market?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There is no legal requirement that the name of the beneficial owner of shares in a limited company shall be entered in the register of members, and indeed Section 101 of the Companies Act, 1929, provides that no notice of any trust, express, implied or constructive, shall be entered on the register or be receivable by the Registrar of Companies registered in England. Any liability or obligation attaching to a share falls to be met by the person in whose name the share is registered. The suggestion that the law should be amended in regard to the registration of shares held by nominee companies has been noted for investigation when the amendment of the Companies Act is under consideration.

Dr. ADDISON: Does that mean that the banks themselves are responsible for any losses that may arise out of these gambles?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I think my right hon. Friend heard me aright when I said that any liability or obligation attaching to a share falls to be met by the person
in whose name the share is registered. That would apply equally to a bank.

Major NATHAN: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will state the time that he estimates will elapse before the examination into the affairs of James and Shakespeare, Limited, has advanced sufficiently far to enable the liquidator to present a report adequate to enable His Majesty's Government to decide whether or not to institute a further and public inquiry into any matters disclosed by such report?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The winding-up order was made yesterday. The official receiver's inquiries must necessarily be searching and full, and I am unable to say at present when they will reach the stage at which he will be able to make a report. The official receiver is, I understand, aware of the desire of His Majesty's Government that his investigations should be conducted with all possible expedition.

Major NATHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously state that a report to be produced at an indefinite future date and available only to shareholders and admitted creditors as a result of a private inquiry is a satisfactory method of dealing with the anxiety that is felt by the public and with the suspicions and rumours which are gravely affecting public credit?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: In the first place, I do not believe for a moment that the official receiver will be dilatory; I believe he will conduct his investigations with all due speed. With regard to the effect on the minds of the public, I can only say that when the reports are published, for the use primarily of shareholders and creditors, they will also be open to other people to read.

Major NATHAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that in answer to a question from me it was made specifically clear that the report would not be available to other than the shareholders and admitted creditors; and, further, will he say whether, with his ripe experience, he expects the report of the official receiver to be available within, let us say, 12 months from this date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I offer no prophecy whatever as to the speed with which the official receiver will work, but I am sure
he will not lose any time. With regard to the other point, I did not say the reports would be withheld from the public. They must be published, but they must be handed over in the first place to those who can see them on behalf of the shareholders and creditors, and that surely makes them as public as they need be.

Mr. WILMOT: Will it be competent for the official receiver to report who are the beneficial owners of that part of the company's capital registered in the names of bank nominees?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper, I will endeavour to give him an answer.

Mr. DAVID MASON: Is it not the case that this report could be discussed in this House on the Board of Trade Vote?

FORESTRY (ELM DISEASE).

Colonel ROPNER: 41.
asked the hon. Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, in which counties has elm disease now been identified; and in which was the disease diagnosed for the first time in 1934?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): Elm disease has been identified in Brecknock, Denbigh, Glamorgan and Merioneth and all the counties of England except Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmorland. It has not been recorded in Scotland. In Cornwall, Merioneth and Lancashire it was recorded for the first time in 1934.

BEET-SUGAR INDUSTRY (CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES).

Mr. H. STEWART: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the attitude of the Government towards the establishment by the co-operative societies of beet-sugar factories; and if the new proposals of the Government for 1935 are in fact likely to raise the price of sugar to the consumer?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Elliot): Since 1924, when the beet-sugar industry was first assisted by Exchequer subsidy there has been no limitation on the erection of beet-sugar
factories in this country. As regards the 1935–36 season, the further interim measure of assistance which Parliament will be asked to provide will be designed to secure the existing position, pending the consideration by the Government of the report of the Committee of Inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. STEWART: Is my right hon. Friend aware that statements are being made in Scotland to the effect that the Government are deliberately preventing co-operative societies, because they are co-operative societies, from engaging in home beet-sugar production, and that it is the deliberate intention of the Government to raise the price of sugar? Can my right hon. Friend give a direct denial to both these charges?

Mr. ELLIOT: I have given a direct denial to the second. As to the first part of the supplementary question, I am more than delighted to hear that the cooperative societies have changed their attitude and are now in favour of promoting beet-sugar production.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

POTATO INDUSTRY.

Mr. HASLAM: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the order issued by the Potato Marketing Board imposes on Lincolnshire, Norfolk, the Isle of Ely, and the Soke of Peterborough a compulsory minimum riddle of 1¾ inches for King Edward and Red King potatoes instead of 1⅝ inches which previously prevailed; and whether, as this order is viewed with much dissatisfaction in the districts concerned owing to the losses entailed, he will make a representation on the subject to the board?

Mr. ELLIOT: I am informed that the object of the regulation of the Potato Marketing Board, to which my hon. Friend refers, is temporarily to adjust the loadings of certain varieties of potatoes from the districts named in order to conform with market conditions, and that the regulation was made in the interests of growers. The regulation came into force on 29th January, and will expire on 28th February. With regard to the latter part of the question the
matter is one primarily between the board and their constituents and, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, it would be undesirable for me to intervene.

Mr. HASLAM: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is the discriminatory nature of the order and its application only to these counties that is causing great concern to the growers?

Mr. ELLIOT: There are full arrangements under the scheme whereby grievances can be investigated and, if necessary, redressed.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Will the right hon. Gentleman himself intervene in this matter and see that the growers in these three counties are dealt with in as fair a manner as the growers in other parts of the country?

Mr. ELLIOT: The growers in other parts of the country accepted the scheme and are working it themselves, and it would be out of order for me to intervene.

Mr. de ROTHSCHILD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the growers of these three counties have been very vocal and have complained bitterly to the board, but have had no redress from the board up to the present time?

Mr. ELLIOT: There is, as my right hon. Friend knows, proper machinery for investigating complaints, and, if necessary, they can lay complaints before the Minister.

DAIRY HERDS (VETERINARY INSPECTION).

Mr. GLOSSOP: 60.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that under the administration of the Milk and Dairies (Consolidation) Act, 1915, and the Tuberculosis Order, 1925, the West Riding County Council employ nine whole-time veterinary officers, Cheshire six, Derbyshire two, Staffordshire none, and Lancashire none; and whether he can state the reason for such varied administration, in view of the fact that these counties are all adjacent and form the North-West Region of the Milk Marketing Board?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): Except that a staff of whole-time veterinary officers has, my right hon. Friend is informed, now been appointed by the Staffordshire County
Council, the facts stated by my hon. Friend are generally correct so far as they go, but they are misleading because in some counties, for example Derbyshire and Lancashire, part-time veterinary officers are employed either exclusively or in addition to the whole-time staff. As regards the second part of the question, veterinary inspection of cattle is compulsory only in certain cases. Routine inspection is optional and not all county councils undertake it. My hon. Friend will be aware that this is one of the matters dealt with in the report of the Committee on Cattle Diseases which is at present receiving consideration.

Mr. GLOSSOP: Will my hon. Friend tell me when some decision will be reached by the Diseases of Cattle Committee; and may I ask whether he is aware of the very great hardship suffered by farmers in the West Riding owing to the severe operation of the regulations there as compared with other counties?

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Could the hon. Member who put the question say where he obtained his information that Staffordshire was an exception?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I pointed out in the answer that that was incorrect. As regards the supplementary question put by the hon. Member, I agree that the position is not satisfactory, but I cannot promise any date by which a report can be made.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Are we to assume that the cattle of Lancashire are healthier than those of Derbyshire and Cheshire?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE.

Miss WARD: 45.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can now inform the House of the additional sum required to reimburse local authorities from 1st October to 28th February for the maintenance of the able-bodied unemployed who will be taken over by the Minister of Labour on the appointed day, the figures to relate, respectively, to the country as a whole, to the north-east coast, and to Northumberland county council and Newcastle-on-Tyne?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have already stated that I am not prepared to consider any further payment to local autho
rities in respect of the period from 1st October to the end of February; there is therefore no such sum required as is assumed by my hon. Friend.

Miss WARD: Will it be possible to let the local authorities have the information in order that we may know how to press the Government and to obtain a reimbursement?

Brigadier-General NATION: Has any arrangement been arrived at with the local authorities as to the further postponement of the second appointed day?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, I have not seen them yet.

Mr. THORNE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in consequence of the Government refusing to reimburse the local authorities, it means an additional rate in some cases of 2d. and 3d. in the pound?

Period.

Pontypridd.
Pontyclun.
Tonyrefail.


Week ended 8th December, 1934
…
4,888
636
1,086


Week ended 15th December, 1934
…
4,862
650
1,095


2 weeks ended 29th December, 1934
…
9,782*
1,240*
2,141*


* This figure represents the total number of payments made in the two weeks, and not the number of separate individuals to whom payments were made.

SALVATION ARMY (STREET COLLECTION).

Mr. THORP: 53.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds permission has been refused to the Salvation Army to hold a street collection in London; and whether, in the light of the good work done by that organisation, he will reconsider his decision?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Gilmour): The application of the Salvation Army for permission to hold a street collection in London was refused by the Commissioner of Police on the advice of the Street Collections Advisory Committee. I understand that the advisory committee in considering the application had regard amongst other things to the smallness of the sums obtained by the Salvation Army by street collection when compared with the amount collected by other means during their Self Denial

Miss WARD: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when I put a, similar question to the Minister of Labour some time before Christmas, he said the necessary information was being prepared.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENTS.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. DAVIES): 51.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons in receipt of transitional payments signing at the following Exchanges: Pontypridd, Pontyclun, and Tonyrefail during the last four weeks of 1934?

Mr. STANLEY: As the reply includes a number of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following table shows the number of persons to whom transitional payments were made direct through the undermentioned employment exchanges during December, 1934.

Week. The Commissioner and I are both fully aware of the admirable work done by the Salvation Army and I need hardly say that the refusal of this application does not involve the slightest reflection upon them, but I regret that I see no sufficient reason for suggesting reconsideration of the matter.

Mr. THORP: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this organisation is making a particular effort this year, and will he, in these circumstances, reconsider the decision not to allow a collection? Is he also aware that the Salvation Army reach a section of the community that is not touched by any other organisation?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The House, of course, is aware of the necessity for reducing the number of street collections. An advisory committee for that purpose was established after wide representation, and on their advice this collection was refused.

Mr. HANNON: Having regard to the fact that this collection is being made in His Majesty's Jubilee year, could not some consideration be given to this particular case, and will my right hon. Friend refer the matter back to the advisory committee?

Sir IAN MACPHERSON: Is it not a fact that there are other collections which might very well be stopped so that preference could be given to this good cause?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Very careful consideration has been given to this matter. The House must not suppose that collections are not being made by the Salvation Army in London. They have been going on in the last few days in premises outside the actual streets. In the circumstances. I do not think any hardship is involved.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: Will the right hon. Gentleman, in view of the representations from all parts of the House, take this matter into fresh consideration and give it his personal consideration?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I am most anxious to be perfectly fair. All I would say to the House is that this matter has been very fully considered, and in the circumstances I do not think there is any real necessity for reconsideration.

SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (CONTRACTS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 56.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether he will make representations to the directors of the Suez Canal Company that, in view of the large holding of the British Government in the shares of the company, British citizens should be invited to tender for any goods or commodities which may be required from time to time by the company; Lind what proportion of recent orders for Portland cement have gone to British firms?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): The Suez Canal Company maintain a list of approved manufacturers from whom they invite tenders for their requirements. The names of United Kingdom firms appear on the list. It is open to any British firm to apply to the head office of the company in Paris to have
its name added to the list. As regards the last part of the question there have been continuous deliveries of United Kingdom cement to the company since 1931, but I am not in a position to state what proportion they represent of the total cement orders placed. I will endeavour to secure this information.

CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. MANDER: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the present position with regard to the current negotiations between China and Japan; whether it is proposed to call a conference of the signatories to the Nine Power Pact to discuss the situation in the Far East; and whether the interest and goodwill of this country and Western Powers generally towards her has been made clear to China?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Eden): I have been asked to reply. As regards the first and second parts of the question, I have nothing I can add to the replies which my right hon. Friend gave on the 13th February to similar questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Nunn) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald). As regards the last part of the question, every suitable opportunity is taken of demonstrating the good will of this country towards China, and the interest felt here in her welfare. I have no reason for believing that this is not fully appreciated by the Chinese Government and people.

Mr. MANDER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are co-operating with the United States Government on this subject?

Mr. EDEN: That is a different question.

POLAND AND JAPAN.

Mr. MANDER: 58.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information with regard to the military pact between Poland any Japan?

Mr. EDEN: I am aware of the newspaper report to which I presume the hon. Member refers regarding the alleged conclusion of a reciprocal defensive agree
ment between Poland and Japan. Such information as we have received indicates that the report is without foundation.

Mr. MANDER: Do I understand my right hon. Friend to say that he is in a position to deny the existence of any such treaty?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member must understand that such information as I have shows that the report has no foundation.

ANGLO-FRENCH COMMUNIQUE (GERMAN REPLY).

Mr. MANDER: 59.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is proposed that any British Ministers shall, in the near future, pay a visit to Berlin in connection with the negotiations recently instituted with the French Government?

Mr. EDEN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, in answer to a private notice question yesterday.

Mr. MANDER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is intended that any other Minister shall accompany the Foreign Secretary?

Mr. EDEN: I cannot say.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there is any truth in the rumour that the East Wolverhampton Light Horse will provide a guard of honour?

PALESTINE (ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 61.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how many Jewish refugees are now in prison in Palestine as illegal immigrants, and how many of these are still in prison although their sentence has been served?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): I have obtained a report dated the 23rd of February from the High Commissioner for Palestine, from which I understand that the position is as follows. At the date of the report there were 125 Jews in prison in Palestine as illegal immi
grants, including those still awaiting release on bail. Including the 68 mentioned in my reply on the 18th of February, there were 87 detained in prison under the Immigration Ordinance after the expiration of their sentences, but, as will be realised from my previous reply, many of these should be released on bail within the next few days, and 18 have already been so released.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask whether it is intended to keep these people in prison indefinitely after their sentence has expired, and, if so, whether the Habeas Corpus Act applies?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I think the position is quite well known to the House. Under the Immigration Ordinance the High Commissioner has power to detain persons who are illegal immigrants until arrangements can be made for their repatriation, and the action which has been taken by the High Commissioner is not only strictly legal, but, I am sure, is necessary in order that immigration into Palestine may be kept to the right people.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me the date of the Ordinance, and whether the imprisonment is indefinite or is there any limit to it whatsoever?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Speaking from memory, I think the date of the Ordinance is 1933, but, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down a question, can answer that precisely. There is no limit provided, because it must depend on how long it takes to make the arrangements referred to; but I told the right hon. and gallant Gentleman last time that the High Commissioner was always prepared to let anybody out on appropriate bail.

Mr. McENTEE: May I ask whether it is proposed to deport all these illegal refugees, or whether exceptions have been made?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I should require notice of that question.

PEPPER (SPECULATION).

Mr. T. SMITH: 62.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when he first received information of the speculative buying of pepper in an attempt to corner
the supplies; whether he gave any warning to His Majesty's representatives in the Colonies likely to be affected; and, if so, what was the nature of this warning?

Mr. PALING: 64 and 65.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) what is the approximate production of pepper within the British Empire; and what proportion, approximately, this hears to the world production:
(2) whether his attention has been called to the heavy accumulations of stocks of pepper as the result of the recent attempts made to corner that commodity; what effect the accumulation is likely to have on pepper growers within the Empire; and whether he has any proposals for safeguarding the interests of the pepper growers?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Exact figures of world production of pepper are not available. Figures for export are available, but appear to fluctuate considerably; in 1933 the exports from all producing countries amounted to approximately 54,000 tons. Of these about 3,000 tons came from British India and 3,400 from the Colonial Empire. Of the latter, 3,260 tons came from Sarawak, which is the only important producer in the Colonial Empire. I was not aware of the speculation which was going on in pepper; and I could not therefore give any warning to the Government of Sarawak. The present accumulation of stocks might obviously be expected to have a depressing effect on the price unless those stocks are strongly held. It is reported that arrangements are being made in the trade for the holding and orderly disposal of the stocks, and it does not appear that any Government action to safeguard the interests of Empire producers of pepper is called for.

TIN REGULATION SCHEME.

Mr. T. SMITH: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the composition of the committee or subcommittee appointed by the world economic conference to inquire into the tin restriction scheme; who were the representatives of His Majesty's Government; and whether the report of the committee was unanimous?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: The subcommittee of the economic commission of the Monetary and Economic Conference which inquired into the tin regulation scheme was composed of representatives of the following producing countries: the United Kingdom (representing also the Colonial Empire), Australia, the Union of South Africa, India, Belgium, Bolivia, China, France, Japan, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal and Siam; and the following consuming countries: the United States of America, Germany and Italy. The representatives of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom were myself, Sir John Campbell and Mr. G. L. M. Clauson, of the Colonial Office, and an officer of the Mines Department. The report was adopted unanimously by the sub-committee, subject to reservations by the representatives of Australia and the Union of South Africa to the effect that in their view it was for the producers themselves and not the Governments to take the action recommended by the sub-committee, so far as their own countries were concerned. The report was subsequently adopted unanimously by economic subcommission II, the economic commission, and the Conference itself. Twenty-three countries were represented on subcommission II, and all countries attending the Conference were represented on the economic commission.

Mr. JOHN: 66.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, while there are ample stocks of tin in the United Kingdom, amounting to over 3,000 tons, owing to pool operations consumers have to pay a premium of about £4 per ton above the quotation for tin deliverable in three months; and whether he will order an investigation in the matter?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: I have made inquiries into this matter and aim informed that it is the almost invariable practice of consumers of tin to purchase their requirements three months ahead. In these circumstances I am advised that the premium on spot tin, as compared with tin deliverable in three months, is probably due to a considerable extent to persons, who sold forward tin which they had not got, experiencing difficulty in finding tin to fulfil their contracts. I would point out that a premium of £4
per ton corresponds to something under 1¾ per cent. on the recent current Tate for spot tin.

Mr. JOHN: 67.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a world monopoly in the marketing of tin is developing under cover of the tin restriction scheme; and whether, in order to obviate the dangers to producers and consumers alike, he will take steps to investigate the position and, particularly, whether any individuals forming the monopoly are in any way connected with the shellac and pepper pools?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: For the reasons given in my reply to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) on 19th February, there is in my view no danger of a world monopoly of tin. As I informed the hon. Member for Gower on 19th February, His Majesty's Government watch developments in the tin market but do not consider that any action on their part is called for. As I stated in reply to the hon. Member for North-East Bethnal Green (Major Nathan) yesterday, the only private tin pool of which I am aware has always been ready to give the International Tin Committee information as regards its holdings of tin.

FUEL COSTS.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS (for Mr. D. DAVIES): 18.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he can state the relative cost per therm of the following: electricity, gas, fuel oil, and pulverised fuel?

Mr. E. BROWN: I regret that, owing to the varying factors involved in arriving at the relative cost of the different fuels to the many classes of consumers concerned, it is impossible to give any figures of cost which would be of general application. I have seen an estimate made by Mr. J. H. Mahler, and published in the Press, but the figures there given should be read in the light of my answer.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION).

Major MILNER: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether there is any intention to alter the constitution of Southern Rhodesia or to
abandon the ultimate responsibility of His Majesty's Government for native policy there?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): As regards the first part of the question, certain proposed amendments of the Southern Rhodesia Constitution relating to the powers of the High Commissioner are under consideration. The answer to the second part is in the negative.

Major MILNER: May we take it that any proposals will be submitted to the House before they are carried into effect?

Mr. THOMAS: Certainly; there will be an opportunity for the House to discuss them.

Major MILNER: Before they are carried into effect?

Mr. THOMAS: Yes.

Major MILNER: I understand that Amendments to the Constitution are under consideration; will those Amendments be submitted to this House before they are carried into effect?

Mr. THOMAS: Amendments to the Constitution are not amendments affecting the native question, as I have already indicated, but are merely amendments affecting the relationship of the High Commissioner to the Secretary of State.

Major MILNER: And there is nothing under consideration affecting the differential treatment of natives?

Mr. THOMAS: Nothing whatever.

CUNARD STEAMSHIP COMPANY (STORES).

Sir W. DAVISON (for Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN): 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Cunard liner "Britannic" purchased 2,000 lbs. of foreign hot-house grapes at Liverpool on or about the 18th January out of bond, and thus avoided paying the duty thereon; and what steps he proposes to take to protect British growers against this practice in view of the subsidy paid by Government to this company?

Mr. COOPER: I am informed that approximately 2,000 lbs. of foreign hothouse grapes were shipped duty free as stores on the "Britannic" on the date in question. The shipment of dutiable goods generally, without payment of duty, for use on the voyage in the case of ships proceeding from this country to foreign parts is a long-standing practice authorised by law. I see no reason for taking any discriminatory action in regard to grapes.

STATEMENT of the Cost to the Exchequer of subsidies in the financial years, 1930–1934.


—
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934 (est.).



£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.
£000.


Housing 
…
…
13,668
14,521
15,215
15,298
16,016


Beet Sugar
…
…
6,023
2,135
2,356
3,333
4,450


Western Highlands and Islands Transport
25
32
31
31
31


Civil Aviation 
…
…
389
395
398
400
432


Mechanical Transport
…
…
33
15
5
2
1


Armour Plate Manufacturers
…
…
60
—
—
—
—


Light Horse Breeding
…
…
30
25
11
—
5


Milk
…
…
—
—
—
—
1,445


Cattle (payments to producers)
…
—
—
—
—
2,100


Herring Industry:


(a) Pitting out expenses of Herring Drifters.
—
—
—
—
15


(b) Cost to the Exchequer under the Herring Industry Bill.
—
—
—
—
602





20,228
17,123
18,016
19,064
25,097

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (INDUSTRIAL ART EXHIBITION).

Mr. GARDNER (for Mr. G. R. STRAUSS): 54.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the intention of the London County Council to assemble at the County Hall from 6th to 16th March an exhibition to illustrate the best work which the principal art institutions of the county of London are producing in the sphere of industrial art; and whether the proposal has the support of the Board of Education?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION, (Mr. Ramsbotham): Yes, Sir. The board have congratulated the London County Council upon their decision to assemble this exhibition and stated that they will watch the results with interest. My Noble Friend and I hope that the exhibition

SUBSIDIES.

Mr. JOHN (for Sir WILLIAM JENKINS): 49.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury particulars of each subsidy and the amount given in each case, separately, for each year 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934?

Mr. COOPER: As the answer involves a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

will be widely visited by manufacturers and distributors of artistic goods and their employés, as well as by teachers and students.

GENERAL ELECTION (MINISTER'S REMARK).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice)
asked the Prime Minister whether the statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Dominions to the effect that the General Election would not come for some years—perhaps three years from now—is to be regarded as an authoritative declaration that the Government have decided upon an extension of the life of this Parliament in order to postpone the General Election?

The PRIME. MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): No, Sir. The remark to which my right hon. Friend is referring was clearly, from its context, not intended
to bear so solemn and literal an interpretation, and I am sure that those who heard it will testify to this.

Mr. LANSBURY: In view of the fact that Members of His Majesty's Government are doing their best to terrorise the nation as to what may happen if a Socialist Government comes into power, will he recommend the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Dominions, when they make these silly, stupid statements, to warn their hearers: "This is only a joke"?

Mr. WILMOT: How much longer do the Goverment intend to tolerate in responsible Ministers this obnoxious buffoonery?

NEW MEMBER SWORN.

Kenneth William Murray Pickthorn, esquire, for the University of Cambridge.

NOTICES OF PRESENTATION OF BILLS.

The following Notices of Presentations of Bills stood upon the Order Paper:
National Industrial Council,—Bill to establish a national industrial council; and for other purposes connected therewith.
Industrial Councils,—Bill to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired; and for purposes connected therewith.
Works Councils,—Bill to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops for the consideration of various matters of mutual concern to employers and employed persons; and for other purposes relating thereto.—[Mr. Mander.]

Mr. HANNON: On a point of Order. I want to ask you. Mr. Speaker, for the guidance of the House, whether, in view of the fact that the Government have taken the whole of the time of the House for the coming Session, an hon. Member is entitled to introduce into this House a catalogue of private Member's Bills, three at a time, and put the country to the expense of printing those Bills? Will the House concur in having these Bills introduced and printed at the expense of the taxpayers of this country I want to ask you, Sir, whether any hon. Member of this House is entitled to introduce at the same time three Bills and impose upon the country the cost of printing them?

Mr. SPEAKER: There is no Order to prevent it being done.

BILLS PRESENTED.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COUNCIL.

Bill to establish a national industrial council; and for other purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Sir Robert Aske, Mr. Bernays, Mr. R. T. Evans, Mr. Dingle Foot, Stir Percy Harris, Mr. Granville, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Major Lloyd George, and Major Nathan; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 37.]

INDUSTRIAL COUNCILS.

Bill to encourage the formation of industrial councils and to legalise voluntary agreements when so desired; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Sir Percy Harris, Mr. Granville, Mr. David Grenfell, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Macmillan, and Sir Cooper Rawson; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 38.]

WORKS COUNCILS BILL,

"to provide for the establishment of consultative works councils in factories and workshops for the consideration of various matters of mutual concern to employers and employed persons; and for other purposes relating thereto,"presented by Mr. Mander; supported by Mr. Bernays, Mr. Dingle Foot, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Sir Percy Harris, Major Nathan, and Mr. Graham White; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday, 6th March, and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES.

Resolved,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend sections thirty-seven and thirty-eight of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923."—[Mr. Lyons.]

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Lyons, Sir Gerald Hurst, Sir John Wallace, Mr. Smedley Crooke, Mr. Gluekstein, Mr. Charles Brown, Mr. Liddall, Mr. Kingsley Griffith and Colonel Broadbent.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL,

"to amend sections thirty-seven and thirty-eight of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

METROPOLITAN POLICE (BORROW ING POWERS) BILL.

Reported, without amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered Tomorrow.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA.

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of three Lords to join with a Committee of the Commons to consider the Petition of the State of Western Australia for a Bill to effectuate the withdrawal of the people of Western Australia from the Federal Commonwealth of Australia, and to report whether the same is proper to be received; and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS (ESTIMATES, 1935).

Estimate presented, for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1936, with Memorandum [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

AIR ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1934).

Copy presented, of Estimate of the further sum required to be voted for Air Services for the year ending 31st March, 1935 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPART MENTS, 1935 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).

Estimate presented, showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1936 [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.

SELECTION (COMMITTEE ON UN OPPOSED BILLS) (PANEL).

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had added the following four Members to the Panel appointed to serve on the Committee on Unopposed Bills under Standing Order 111: Major Colfox, Sir Paul Latham, Mr. Rhys, and Sir Luke Thompson.

Report to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION (STANDING COM MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection: That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Mr. Barclay-Harvey; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Storey.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Post Office (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Attlee, Mr. Ralph Beaumont, Sir Ernest Bennett, Captain Cazalet, Sir William Edge, Mr. Emmott, Captain Sir Ian Fraser, Captain Gunston, Mr. Maitland, and Sir Kingsley Wood.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C: Mr. Drewe, Sir Walter Preston, Brigadier - General Spears, and Mr. Summersby; and had appointed in substitution: Commander Bower, Mr. Flanagan, Captain Fuller, and Sir John Leigh.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to Standing Committee C (in respect of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill): Mrs. Copeland, Mr. Duckworth, Mr. Harbord, Sir George Hume, Mr. Oswald Lewis, Mr. McEntee, Mr. Potter, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Shakespeare, and the Solicitor-General.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson further reported from the Committee: That they had added the following Ten Members to
the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Housing (Scotland) Bill): Mr. David Adams, Mr. Brockle bank, Colonel Crookshank, Mr. Leckie, Major Sir Alan McLean, Mr. Munro, Mr. Orr-Ewing, Mr. Ross Taylor, Mr. West Russell, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Considered in Committee [Third Day—Progress 20th February].

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

3.45 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
The Committee will not, I am sure, be surprised at my venturing to submit this Motion. I do so because of the momentous news which has been received from India, and which we learn from every side in the public Press. I do so for the purpose of commenting upon that news and pointing out the position in which we stand with regard to the Clauses which have now become the immediate subject of debate; and also for the purpose of giving the Secretary of State the opportunity, which no doubt he will desire, of making a statement on the subject. According to the reports which have appeared, and which I do not understand to be in any way challenged as official reports, the Princes of India, at their meeting in Bombay yesterday, passed a resolution which no doubt is present to the minds of hon. Members of this Committee, and the closing paragraphs of which indicate very definite rejection of the Government's scheme for the Federation of India. What strikes me about this resolution, the summarised reports, and the telegrams which, it is said, the Princes have addressed to the Secretary of State, is the variety, the gravity, and the substance of the differences which exist. These are not differences which can be described in any way as matters of drafting, as small points which can be adjusted, minor matters which make for some misunderstanding which can easily be cleared up later on on Report. It is said that these differences touch the following matters:
The form and mode of accession to the Federation.
The provisions for the preservation of treaties and agreements concluded with the States.
The special responsibilities of the Governor-General in respect of the States.
Then there is a most important point, touching the efficacy of the safeguards in the event of grave public disorder supervening in India and its being necessary to suspend the Constitution.
Measures to be taken in the event of its being necessary to suspend the Constitution.
The treatment of privileges and immunities.
Enforcement of the Federal laws and the powers vested in the Governor-General to give directions to the rulers of States.
The extent of the executive authority of the Federation in regard to the States.
There are further differences which have arisen on finance, and also upon what I should have thought was a very essential matter to federation, namely, the working of the statutory railway board in relation to the competition between State railways in the possession of native States and State railways in the possession of the Government of India. I venture to submit that this resolution constitutes a new political situation so far as the future of this Bill is concerned. Certainly I cannot conceive how, in the face of all these Amendments and alterations which are put forward by a body whose concurrence is indispensable to the entire process of the Bill, we can be asked to discuss the remaining general question of Clause 5, and still less Clause 6, which deals with this very topic of accession.
I have pointed out already the inconvenience to which the Committee would be put in embarking upon these discussions before we knew what the Princes' decision was, and, indeed, it seemed quite likely that we should have already disposed of Clause 6 by this time. Happily, it is still in the possession of the Committee, but how is it competent for us to discuss it? Here are Amendments which affect the whole basis, and we do not know what the Amendments are, nor, I suppose, is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to tell us exactly what the Amendments are or to place them on the Paper. If we were able to put them on the Paper in two or three days, we could easily postpone the Clauses until the Amendments were there, but to discuss the Clauses without knowing what are all the alterations in
the structure of the Bill, to discuss the whole question of federation in all the Clauses in the Bill without knowing whether in fact the indispensable condition, namely, the accession of the Princes is going to be achieved, is purely to confront the House with the prospect of discussing a hypothetical matter with the prospect of embarking on a great waste of time, thus condemning us in all probability to a prolonged and dreary farce. This question of the accession of the Princes is, as everyone recognises on both sides, the Government and the Opposition, and those of us who dissent from the proposal of the Government, the foundation of the whole policy. I am not going to burden the House with any more quotations than one which is necessary to establish the ease. The Secretary of State in his broadcast speech on 1st January said:
There cannot be provincial autonomy without federation, and federation must be all-India federation embracing the States and British India. If there is to be federation, there must be responsibility in the central Government if only to satisfy the reuirements of the Princes, who will not enter a federation controlled by Whitehall.
There is the foundation, and it has been the whole story that the Government have told from the beginning of the discussion. It was for this that they made their departure from the more or less solid ground of the Statutory Commission. It was at this point that the landslide at the first Round Table Conference occurred. This was the point where they threw the train of coaches off the line with the disaster that we have suffered from ever since. I could give a dozen instances of the Secretary of State's insistence on this point. On this everything stands. This is the rigmarole that he taught all his followers to proclaim with so much insistence.
I see the Lord President in his place and I am bound to address myself to him amicably but pointedly. The Lord President met his party at Queen's Hall at a meeting to which great importance was attached and around which a great deal of interest hung. What was the crux of his appeal? It was that you must not reject this offer of the Princes. My right hon. Friend would not have thrown all that weight on to that topic at this moment if he had not honestly believed that there was a prospect of a great new situation, and to seize that
prospect, to enjoy that opportunity, was what he urged them to do. He quoted first of all the Foreign Secretary's recantation of the Simon Report. He quoted the Foreign Secretary as saying:
But since we reported there has been a new fact.
There has been another new fact.
We were commissioners, but we were not prophets, and it was not until after we had reported that the new fact emerged.
He went on to describe the action of some of the Indian Princes which led to' the changes in the Government policy in 1931. The Lord President said to his followers—I can see them visibly wilt under the impact of the appeal—
It would, indeed, be a great responsibility to reject the prospect of a closer union between the Indian Princes and their great territories on the one hand, and the British India, for which we have a special responsibility, on the other.
This is the linch pin of the whole story, and the linch pin has been pulled out. I contend and submit substantially that that is the fact.
I must revert for a moment to the resolution of the Princes. It is not only what they say; it is the tone in which they say it that the House should note. If these were minor difficulties to which a happy outcome was expected, you would not expect a manifesto of this kind containing some very serious things considering the body from which they emanate, considering the relations of those Princes to the Viceroy and to His Majesty's Government.
This meeting desires to emphasise that in many respects the Bill and the instrument of accession depart from the agreement arrived at during the meetings of the representatives of the States with Members of His Majesty's Government.
Only the other day Lord Halifax was saying:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is confident that the report pf the Committee does, in fact, substantially meet the reasonable apprehensions of the Princes as they were explained to the Joint Select Committee.
Here the Princes have declared that in many respects these proposals depart from the agreement arrived at. There is a direct conflict of testimony between the two parties. It is always very serious when people who are supposed to be in the closest relations say that there is a breach of an agreement arrived at. You may be sure that there is a great deal of
feeling behind the differences. The resolution continues:
And regrets to note that the Bill and the instrument of accession do not secure those vital interests and fundamental requisites of the States on which they have throughout laid great emphasis.
Surely this matter cannot be dismissed as a mere question of drafting. It is without a knowledge of the Amendments that will be required to meet these vital interests and fundamental requisites that the Committee is going to be urged to proceed with the discussion of Clause 6 and the other federal Clauses. It went on to say:
This meeting is of the definite opinion that in their present form, and without statutory modification of and alteration to the fundamental points, the Bill and the instrument of accession cannot be regarded as acceptable to the Indian States.
Who are these Princes who made this proposal and committed themselves to -this very far-reaching and weighty pronouncement? They were unanimous in the first instance and they are representative of the Princes of India in an overwhelming degree. The little States were there as well as the great, though not by any means all the little States. The States to whom the greatest inducements have been offered to join the Federation, Mysore, Hyderabad and Travencore—all these States concurred in this resolution, and they are the greatest States in India. They are meant to be the main part of the 50 per cent.—the old guard—upon which the right hon. Gentleman is hoping to rely to carry his proposals. He cut it down to 50 per cent., and here are those great States which were an essential part of the 50 per cent. In addition to that, it is not only the Princes who were lukewarm, who had secret misgivings, who have been talking pretty freely of their misgivings and fears about the Bill and some of them declaring their definite hostility, who are represented in this resolution, but the Princes who were most in favour of this policy, the very Princes who made the original offer, the unauthorised offer as we contend and as many of the other Princes have contended, the very Princes who came forward and have always been paraded as the special champions of this policy and deflected the course of events at the Round Table Conference—these are the Princes who are associated with others in
this resolution they have presented to us in this form.
The Committee, I think, will see the difficult position in which it is this afternoon in embarking upon the discussion. I must confess that I am not at all surprised at this change of opinion of the active minority of the Princes on whom the Government have hitherto rested as the champions of the Government policy. In fact, I think that this change in their opinion—a very decisive change it is—bears out what some of us have ventured to submit to the House and to the Committee. These were the Princes, these were the minority, who were led to make the so-called offer in 1931 as the result of a bargain with some of the representatives of the Congress, and some of the advanced parties in India. The terms of this bargain—an unholy bargain—were that if the Princes demanded responsible government at the Centre, then the Congress party would leave them to govern their estates as they liked. That was the outline of it.
I want the Committee to see exactly how this matter has worked. These were the Princes most susceptible to the influence of the Indian political classes in British India, and in those days the opinion of those political classes was in favour of a federal system, with responsible government at the Centre. But now that the whole matter has been examined and discussed, those very political classes are in full retreat and in recoil from the proposal. They have carried a resolution against it by an overwhelming majority in the Indian Assembly, and they are undoubtedly bringing their influence to bear upon the Princes with whom they were originally in touch in exactly the contrary sense of four years ago, with the result that those Princes, who are working more or less in close association with those political elements, are moving in the opposite direction just as strongly as they moved in the direction of the Government in 1931.
That is the explanation, and one can see it working. Thus those Princes who were most amenable beforehand to the Government project, are now falling back into the main line of all the rest of the Princes who never liked it, and were only embarrassed by the many influences brought to bear upon them to draw them
into the main body. Hence the unanimity of all these Princes. The names of the States have only to be read out to dispose of any argument that they are not the dominating force with the Indian Princes, and that is the reason of the unanimity among them. There is another thing not less remarkable which should not be overlooked, and that is that the Ministers are in agreement with the Princes. The Ministers of the States are represented as being in agreement with the Princes. That is very remarkable, because one always can see that the Ministers naturally would be very much in favour of Federation. The Princes, with a dynasty going hack 1,000 years, might very well be cautious, but the Ministers had everything to gain with regard to their personal position, because once they became the nominees of those States in the Federal Assembly their position would be vastly different, their status would be vastly raised and they would no longer hold their position purely at the pleasure of the Princes they served. The idea that when some great Minister of State was playing a great part in the Federal Assembly he could be recalled owing to the fact that the Sovereign under whom he was serving wished to have another nominee, even if it were entertained would be very difficult to carry out in practice. Any assembly worthy of its salt would rally to such a man who was suddenly recalled by an outside power. The Ministers who were to gain this great accretion to their strength have associated themselves with the Princes in these far-reaching declarations.
Thus all the articulate elements in Indian political life from Congress up to the Princes are arrayed against this Bill, and the reason why I move to report Progress is in order to ascertain what course His Majesty's Government wish to pursue. No doubt the Secretary of State will try to minimise the difficulties. He will promise vaguely further important concessions, while at the same time hurrying on these vital Clauses, getting them through the Committee stage without disclosing the details of the concessions at all to the House or the Princes. If the Committee lends itself to this imposture, and if the Government, by using their enormous majority, enforce it upon the House, all I say is that they will only put off and
only aggravate the inevitable day of reckoning. It is quite certain that the attitude of the Princes is now definitely against this kind of federation at this particular time. The safeguards may be whittled down. You may relax some of the precautions in the veto of the Viceroy which you believe indispensable to the discharge of the responsibilities of this House. The power of the Viceroy to deal with an emergency may be crippled by the concessions which you will propose. The coherence of federal India may be impaired by further awkward concessions in regard to railways and finance, and the small benefits which were offered to us as a result of this enormous change in the structural organisation of the Indian polity will be lost.
Although this may be the method which the right hon. Gentleman is about to adopt, and which has been enforced upon the House, and may condemn us to discussion utterly meaningless, which is an affront to Parliament, yet we predict with confidence that nothing will change now the resolve of the Indian Princes to disengage themselves from what they have realised is a dangerous project, and, while so many things are in flux, nothing will lead them, and nothing should lead them, to quit the, solid rock of their treaties with the King Emperor. Now that we have reached this point, we see the improvidence and the short-sightedness of the kind of arguments used by the Secretary of State, and by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) and by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy). These are the arguments of which I warned them when I addressed the House before. [Interruption.] I am in the recollection of the House that they were very shortsighted in declaring that nothing in this Bill is worth anything without the federal Clauses, and unless the Princes come in, and that without federation they would rather not go on with it, and that we had better drop it altogether rather than proceed with this provincial home rule, without this super-home rule at the summit. That seemed to me to be a most improvident argument at the time when it was uncertain whether the Princes would come in or not. The right hon. Gentleman kept on assuring us that it
would be all right. Of course they would come in. Of course there would be minor difficulties, and so on. So have all the Government spokesmen said everywhere, but our opinion has, I think, proved more accurate upon this matter—more accurate, at any rate, than any opinion the right hon. Gentleman has yet given to the House or the Committee.
As I say, it seems to me that my right hon. Friends have placed themselves in a position of great difficulty, and so has the Secretary of State, because now, if the Princes do not come in, they have used arguments which will be used against them, or might be used against them, to vitiate even that provincial extension of home rule which was proposed to us by the solemn, carefully worked-out report of our Statutory Commission four years ago. However, we shall leave the Government and its Ministerial supporters to disentangle themselves from these foolish and unforeseeing arguments which were so freely used thus to get round the momentary corner of a Debate. It is clear that the federal scheme is dead. Every day its decomposition will be more evident, and, as the summer advances, more offensive. But even now His Majesty's Government have a chance—perhaps the most blessed end fortunate chance—to get back to the broad proposals of that Statutory Commission to which nothing useful has been added in the last four years. Although we consider, as I have often said, and I am bound to repeat now, that those proposals are a most hazardous experiment, they do not contain the mortal perils of this federal plan. Let the Government discard the federal plan. Let the right hon. Gentleman put aside pride and obstinacy. Let him imitate the prudence and the wisdom of Sir Robert Walpole on the great Excise Bill when, having seen what the situation was, he told his followers and supporters with the greatest conviction, "This dance can no further go."

4.12 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Sir Samuel Hoare): I must not be tempted into the wider field of confident prophecy which has just been traversed by my right hon. Friend. I rise rather—and I welcome the opportunity—to remove a number of misunderstand
ings that are evidently in the mind of my right hon. Friend. Some other misunderstandings may be connected with a speech I made in the Committee stage of this Bill last week. Thirdly, a number of misunderstandings which certainly seem to me to be in the mind of many of the Princes themselves and many of their ministers. I suppose it is natural in questions of this kind that these misunderstandings should arise. We are attempting to deal with one of the most complex questions that have ever faced any assembly and we are attempting to deal with it with the principals 6,000 miles apart. While, therefore, I regret that misunderstandings do arise and must arise, I cannot say that I am surprised that they do arise. My right hon. Friend has quoted some passages in the Resolution passed yesterday by certain of the Indian Princes. In order that the Committee may have before them the whole position I think I had better read the whole of the Resolution:
The Princes and representatives of the States present at this meeting have examined the Government of India Bill and the draft Instrument of Accession and read and considered the report made by the Committee of Ministers presided over by Sir Akbar Hydari, which recently dealt with some important provisions of the said Bill and draft Instrument of Accession. They have also considered the opinions of legal advisers and experts, whose views have been obtained thereon. While reserving to themselves the right to offer further observations and criticisms in due course, the Princes and representatives of the States present at this meeting fully endorse the observations and criticisms contained in the report submitted by the Committee of Ministers to the extent that the committee have been able to deal with the matters in question.
This meeting desires to emphasise that in many respects the Bill and the Instrument of Accession depart from agreements arrived at during the meetings of representatives of the States with Members of His Majesty's Government, and regrets to note that the Bill and Instrument of Accession do not secure those vital interests and fundamental requisites of the States on which they have throughout laid great emphasis. This meeting is of the definite opinion that in their present form, and without satisfactory modification of and alteration to fundamental points, the Bill and Instrument of Accession cannot be regarded as acceptable to the Indian States.
When I read that resolution last night it came upon me as a great surprise. Only three or four days ago upon the Committee stage of this Bill, when my right hon. Friend proposed that Clauses
6 and 7 should be postponed, I said what at that time was the case, that I was under the impression that there were only points of detail at issue between the States and ourselves, and there was no reason why those two Clauses should be postponed. I believe that I shall show in the course of my observations this afternoon that that was not only a, correct statement of the position a week ago, but that, in spite of the resolution that I have just read, it is equally the correct position to-day.
There is one statement in the resolution to which at the outset of my remarks I should like to draw attention, the statement in which it is alleged that the Government have gone back upon agreements made between ourselves and the representatives of the Princes. Let me say at once to this Committee, and let me say, if my voice travels as far, to my friends among the Indian Princes, that I cannot accept the justice of that charge. So far as I know, we have carried out in every respect the agreements that have been made between us and the representatives of the Princes. If by mischance we have failed in the drafting of the Bill to carry out those undertakings, I will see that they are carried out. I can only explain a statement of that kind on the ground that it may be difficult, without long notice, to follow the exact scope and drafting of a complicated Bill of this kind, but I do here and now say that, in my view and in the view of the Government, in every respect we have carried out the agreements that we said we would carry out, and if the draftsmanship of this Bill fails in any respect to show that that is the case, I will see that the drafting of the Clauses is readjusted and that, beyond at shadow of doubt, the position shall be made clear.
Secondly, the Princes are, so far as I am aware, agreed with us to-day, as they have always been agreed in the past, that if there is to be a federation, it must be an effective federation. I have always made my own position clear, namely, that I would not support any proposals for a sham federation. The Federation must be a real federation exercising effective federal powers over a sufficient field of administration. That is the view we have always taken of a federation, and so far as I know, in all our discussions, that is the view that the Princes themselves have taken of an All
India Federation. I cannot believe to-day that they have altered in any respect their view in that regard. If they have altered their veiw—and I do not believe that they have altered it—let them tell us so clearly and categorically. The sooner this House knows the position, and the sooner everybody in India knows the position, the better for all parties concerned. I can, however, say to the Committee that, in spite of this resolution, I have no reason to suppose that the Princes have altered their conception of what an All-India Federation should be.
Assuming that both the Princes and ourselves are still bent upon setting up an effective All-India Federation, I say to the Committee, after a very careful examination of the points that seem to be at issue, that there is no reason at all why these questions should not be adjusted between the Princes and ourselves. I believe myself that many of them are already adjusted in the Bill and that the Princes do not yet realise in detail how far their legitimate desires have effectively been met. Where, as I say, they have not been met I have given the undertaking to meet them. Consequently, I say to the Committee that there is no reason—and I shall substantiate this contention in my later remarks—for the Committee to delay its discussions. Many of the points in which the Princes are chiefly interested come at later stages of the Bill. We shall have ample opportunity of dealing with them when the time arises for their discussion. If, however, in the near future or in the less near future at any time, it appears that there are irreconcilable differences between the Government and the Princes, I will at once inform the Committee of the fact, and I will give the undertaking that we will, in that case, reconsider the whole position. At present—and I am going to substantiate this point in the remarks which I am now going to make—I do not see that there is any irreconcilable difference between us. I do not believe that when I have finished my examination of the points to which the Princes allude in their resolution, that the Committee will come to the view that there are irreconcilable differences between us.
It is clear from the terms of the official report of the meeting that the Princes'
decision does not indicate any change of their attitude towards federation, and is in no sense a pronouncement against the general scheme of the Bill. The Princes have always made it clear from the start, and no one has ever seriously questioned their claim, that it is their right as sovereign rulers to decide how far they are prepared to bring their respective States under the authority of the Federation. So far as I can see the major part of the difficulties which they now feel arise from doubts as to whether or not this position is made clear beyond doubt by the Bill. Both the States and the Government have, I am sure, the same broad objects in. view. We both desire that accession by a ruler to the Federation shall mean effective participation by his State in the federal organism. On the other hand, it has always been the States' intention and we, of course, on our side have always freely admitted, that the application of this Act to any federated State should be governed in effect by the ruler's Instrument of Accession. That is to say, it is for the ruler and the ruler alone to determine, subject, of course, to acceptance of his accession by the Crown, the extent of the field over which the Federal authorities are to operate in his State.
Clause 6 of the Bill was designed to make this position clear. The Amendments standing in my name, which I hope to move in the course of our next discussions, are intended, not indeed to make any substantial change in that Clause as drafted but to make the intentions still clearer, and I am confident after closer examination of the Clause, amended as I propose it should be amended, it will be found by the Princes to go much further than they have supposed towards meeting their difficulties. That fact will become clearer when I actually move these Amendments.
I understand—and I draw the attention of the Committee to this point—that the main difficulty which the Princes feel about this Clause as it stands is the obligation which it imposes upon them to accept the Act as a whole. They feel this difficulty, in spite of the fact that its acceptance is immediately followed in paragraph (b) of the first sub-section by a provision for freedom of choice on the part of the ruler as to the subjects for federal legislation which he accepts, or,
in other words, describing the field over which the Act shall operate in his State, and further the freedom to make conditions as to his acceptance of any of these subjects. The intention of the Clause was that such conditions should be applicable not only to the legislative powers as regards any particular matter of the Federal Legislature in its relation to the State, but correspondingly to the executive authority of the Federal Government in relation to the same matter. My Amendments to this Clause are, in part, designed to make this intention perfectly clear, and later on I shall move another Amendment to Clause 8 with the same object.
I understand that the form the States would like this Clause to take is a provision whereby they would accept such of the provisions of the Act as they may expressly specify in their Instruments of Accession. There are obvious difficulties in the way of acceptance of a suggestion on these lines, and the result might well be that, in theory at all events, every ruler who acceded to the Federation would select different provisions of the Act as the basis of the constitution in his State with the result that we might have a multiplicity of consitutions operating in different parts of India as a result of this Bill. This, I am quite sure, is not the intention of the Princes. Their fear is—and it is a natural fear—that acceding to the provisions of the Act even subject to the qualifications to which I have referred might have consequences in their States which on present examination they cannot foresee, and which might lead to results in the way of a diminution of their sovereignty which neither they nor the Government could ever contemplate. I wish to remove this fear. On the one hand it is impossible to contemplate a position in which it will be open to every acceding State to select for itself the provisions of the Act to apply to that State, arid, on the other hand, I am quite prepared to consider sympathetically and to bring before the Committee any representation which the Princes may think it right to make with reference to any particular one of the later Clauses of the Bill upon which they anticipate disadvantages of the kind to which I have referred.
Let me put what I have said into more concrete form. The Government proposal is that the Princes should accede to the
whole Act and that in the Instrument of Accession the Princes should set out the subjects on which the Act is acceded to, making it clear, firstly, that the Act does not touch any other subject, and, secondly, that the Act does not detract from the Princes' sovereignty in any other respect. The Princes are nervous because they are afraid that at some time in the future a federal Government might, as the unexpected result of some other Clause in the Act and perhaps as a result of a decision in a federal Court, encroach upon a field that the Princes have not actually surrendered. The Princes, therefore, say: "Let us not accede to the whole Act but let us set out in the Instrument of Accession only the points in the Act to which we actually accede." I do not think the Princes have fully considered the implications of a proposal of that kind. The effect of it would be, first of all, to throw open to negotiation the whole field of the Bill instead of throwing open to negotiation between the Government and the Princes certain specific points in the Bill. That in itself would prolong almost indefinitely the period of these negotiations.
But there is a greater danger inherent in a proposal of this kind. If it were accepted, Parliament would not know in the least what kind of federation it was setting up. The question would be left in the air and open to subsequent negotiations over the whole field between the British Government and scores of Indian Princes. I am quite sure that Parliament would never allow a Bill of this kind to pass on to the Statute Book without knowing what kind of federation was going to be set up, nor would it pass an Act of this kind if the result was going to be not one constitution in India but possibly scores of different constitutions in India. I do not believe that the Princes have realised all these implications. They are nervous, and perhaps they are rightly nervous, lest, after having acceded over a definite field, other issues encroaching upon their sovereignty might arise in the future. We are prepared to safeguard their position. I am prepared to give them an undertaking that we will deal sympathetically with any Clause in the Bill other than the Clauses which actually deal with the federal list—that is, the list of federal subjects—which may appear to them to be dangerous in the future. But we must deal with
specific Clauses. We cannot throw the whole field open without any limitation upon it at all, and I believe that when the Princes have more leisure to study the Clauses in the Bill and when we have had a further opportunity of discussing these difficulties with them we shall be able most effectively, while retaining the general federal structure of the Bill, to safeguard the Princes' position in every respect.
I pass from the question of the method of accession to the second question which they emphasise in their resolution, namely, the question of the inviolability of their treaties. Here, I am sure that misunderstanding has arisen. They seem to regard it as a breach of faith that we have not in some way dealt with the treaties, either within the four corners of the Bill or in the Instrument of Accession. I was under the impression that in all our discussions, now ranging over many years, there had been a general agreement among ourselves and the representatives of the Princes that questions of paramountcy should be kept out of the Federal Bill altogether, and that it was much safer from the Princes' point of view to keep questions of paramountcy out of an Act of this kind. As soon as questions of paramountcy are included in an Act, inevitably they become the subject of decisions by the Federal Court, and I understood that that was the last thing in the world that the great majority of the Indian Princes desire. So also with regard to the Instrument of Accession. Here, again, I understood that it was the Princes' desire to keep questions connected with treaties out of the Instrument of Accession, and for the same reason, that the Instrument of Accession will be interpreted by the Federal Court. Because we intend to keep questions of this kind outside the scope of the Bill and outside the Instrument of Accession it does not in the least follow that we are not just as determined as we have always been to make it quite clear, in the most solemn manner, that we regard the treaties between the Crown and the Indian States as inviolate, and I give an undertaking that in the most solemn and formal manner, but not within the Bill, we will carry out that undertaking.
There are a number of other questions which arise from their resolution, hut I must not deal with them in detail. No
doubt we shall deal with them in greater detail when we come to the Clauses affecting them. Let me, however, give to the Committee a general idea of what they amount to. First of all, there is a point in Clause 8. That Clause, so they say, even as I propose to amend it, does not make it sufficiently clear that the executive authority of the Federation within the range of any matter accepted by a State as a federal subject can be limited to the same extent as the legislative power can be limited. This I am sure will be found to be a question of drafting. Then, again, Clause 8, so we are told, does not make it sufficiently clear that the executive authority of the Federation extends to placing at the service of the Crown the military means of implementing the Crown's obligation to protect the States. That is a point to which we attach as much importance as the Princes themselves. But if further examination either of Clause 8 or of other Clauses should show that our provisions are not effective I am confident that the Committee would wish that they should be made secure.
Further, the States are inclined to regard the wording of the Governor-General's special responsibility as described in Clause 12 (I. a) as enabling him in his capacity as Governor-General to intervene to an extent not hitherto regarded as justifiable in the internal affairs of the Indian States. On this point I would remind the Committee that the special responsibilities of the Governor-General regulate the relations of his Ministers in the exercise of the powers which he possesses but do not themselves regulate the extent of those powers. Obviously, this criticism is founded upon a misunderstanding. Again, the States are not apparently entirely satisfied with the wording of the Governor-General's special responsibility for the safeguarding of the rights of the States. Here I believe there is no difference of intention whatever. It is a question of the manner of expressing what we intend. Other points on which questions have been raised relate to the provision in Clause 45 on the failure of constitutional machinery, the wording of Clause 99 defining the legislative powers, and to Clause 127, which describes the relations between the Federal Government and the States, and certain financial Clauses. I cannot believe that any
of the points raised on these Clauses are matters upon which permanent difference will arise.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has quoted certain representations that have been received in respect of certain Clauses, and he has stated how those representations are to be met. They are of course not in the resolution of yesterday. Will he tell us when those representations were made and whether when the Princes met at their meeting they knew of the intended Amendments that would be submitted to this House?

Sir S. HOARE: The first time that I heard of these criticisms was on Sunday when I received a telegram about the meeting of Ministers. At present I have no more than a comparatively brief telegram setting out the points which I have described. What I undertake to do is that as soon as I receive the criticisms in detail I will in some appropriate way put the Committee in possession of them. I think I have said sufficient to-day to the Committee to show that so far as I can judge none of them seem to be questions of principle, but that all of them seem to be questions of detail that can be, at any rate in some cases, easily adjusted.
Let me, in conclusion, give, with great deference, a word of advice to the Committee. I would not venture to give a word of advice were it not for the fact that week in and week out for four years past I have been dealing incessantly with these complicated problems. The Committee is dealing with a question the magnitude of which it is almost impossible to estimate. At every point there are problems of immense complexity; in every chapter of the Bill there are angle= from which it can be attacked by an enfilading fire from both sides. There never was a Bill on which there was greater scope for criticism, greater scope for an opposition to exploit vulnerable points in it. It is very easy to exploit vulnerable points; it is very easy to magnify the obstacles in our way, obstacles which are sufficiently great in themselves. I hope the Committee will realise that this is a Bill of a unique character and that while there is no reason on an ordinary Bill why we should not make the most of our points of difference, in this case the House has set itself
a task of immense responsibility. It has instructed the Government to produce a Bill on the lines of the report of the Joint Select Committee. The responsibility, therefore, is the responsibility, not of the Minister, but of the great majority of the House as a whole. That being so, I hope that we shall avoid the temptation of exaggerating difficulties as they arise from time to time and that at all costs we shall attempt to remove rather than magnify them.
There will be many perplexing moments in the course of our discussions and ample opportunities for critics to take advantage of a, difficult situation. I hope that we shall avoid that temptation, and that to-day we shall show by our action that we are not going to be rushed by alarmist charges of the character to which we have just listened, that we are going to proceed upon our way realising that the responsibility is on the shoulders of this House. While we are most anxious to listen to Indian opinion at every possible opportunity and most desirous to give the fullest possible weight to that opinion, I hope we shall realise that the responsibility is with us, and that the need is for us to go on our way drafting the Bill in the way that we believe is best for India, for this country and for the Empire. That being so, I hope that when we have disposed of the Motion we shall resume our discussions on the Bill Clause by Clause. I believe that we can meet the difficulties which have been raised by the Princes; if we cannot, then I shall be the first to come to the Committee and give the Committee the information.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Once again the Committee has been made aware of the measure of interest which some hon. Members take in Indian affairs so far as the point of view of His Majesty's Opposition is concerned. Whatever other people may feel as to the wisdom of the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) in moving the Motion, we on this side cordially agree that he has done the proper thing. I would add this, that if the right hon. Gentleman had not moved the Motion my Friends and I would have taken steps to have raised this matter at the earliest opportunity to-day. There is no use gainsaying the fact that the situation presented to us
to-day is fundamentally different from that which was presented to us last week. There has been a substantial change in the position. I entirely understand that the Secretary of State felt the necessity for reassuring the Princes, as far as he can, in his statement this afternoon, but that does not alter the fact that the situation has substantially changed. I would go further and say that the speech of the Secretary of State this afternoon is an additional justification for postponing these discussions.
I do not want hon. Members of the Committee to misunderstand the approach of my friends and myself to this matter. The right hon. Member for Epping is well aware that his approach to this problem and ours are fundamentally different. He takes the most violent opposition to any further development beyond provincial self-government. We do not take that view. From the beginning, and throughout the meetings of the Joint Select Committee, my colleagues and I steadily took the view that some form of federation appeared to be inevitable if you are to enable the Indian people to achieve anything in the nature of unity. That is pretty obvious to everyone. But while I am quite prepared to say that we are in favour of a federation, I want to say most emphatically that the more I study these proposals and the more I hear them explained by the Government the more alarmed do I get as to their implications. It is easy for the Secretary of State to say that whatever form of federation he might propose it would be attended with great complexities and difficulties, that is obvious, and the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to say that some of the complexities, even those which have arisen as a result of yesterday's decision, are complexities which will arise in the course of the progress of a Bill such as this.
I do not propose now to raise in detail the problem of federation; the simple matter before us at the moment is whether the new situation justifies us reporting Progress. I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Epping that the sooner the present situation is cleared up the better. I am not at all certain, if I may say without any disrespect to the Secretary of State, that even after what he has said I quite grasp the situation now. If my appreciation of the
situation is sound and correct then-I must confess that I fell more alarmed than ever. What is the position? The whole basis of the speech of the Secretary of State this afternoon seemed to run on this line. He said, "We have made an honest effort to embody what we consider to be the demands of the Princes in this Bill, but if we have failed in any particular to implement any promise we have made I am quite prepared, as soon as possible, to set the matter right."

Whereupon the GENTLEMAN USHER of the BLACK ROD being come with a Message, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair. Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went;—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:
1. British Shipping (Assistance) Act, 1935.
2. Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935.

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Question again proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Before the intervention of Black Rod I was saying that I gathered from the Secretary of State that he was giving an undertaking to the Committee, and through the Committee to the Princes in India, that if in any particular any agreement which might have been arrived at between him and them, or any agreement that was understood to have been arrived at between him and the Princes in various conferences was not fully implemented in the Bill, he was quite prepared to see that those promises were fully implemented hereafter. We really must get to know what is involved in this business. So far as we know officially in this House the only promises that have been made by the Princes or to
the Princes in the past are redeemed in the. Clauses and Schedules of this Bill.
Yesterday there was the discussion in the Chamber of Princes, and as a result a decision was arrived at that in the view of the Princes the provisions in the Clauses of the Bill do not fully implement what the Princes understood to be agreed between them and the Secretary of State. This afternoon the Secretary of State has been at great pains to try to show that the Princes are labouring under a misconception; but we really must urge, with the right hon. Member for Epping, that there is a case for moving to report progress, because we cannot agree to handing over to the Princes a blank cheque to be filled in anyhow. We must know on what condition the Princes come in. It will not do for one Prince to be allowed to come into the Federation acceding, say, to 10 subjects, another Prince to 20 subjects, another to 50 subjects, another to 30 subjects and another to only one subject.
On the Order Paper to-day my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) will move an Amendment dealing with labour conditions and conditions in relation to the International Labour Office. Is any single Prince to be allowed to determine for himself whether or not to accede in respect of this labour question? Are some Princes to accept it as a federation subject in relation to themselves, and others not? What sort of chaos shall we have in India if that is to be allowed? Surely we ought to know, therefore, what are the terms upon which these gentlemen—I say nothing unkindly about them—are to be permitted to join the Federation. If there is to be a further discussion, if there are to be further negotiations, clearly the case for postponing consideration of Clauses 5 and 6 is all the stronger. If there are no further agreements to be made, no further concessions to be granted, very well, we know where we are. But do we know where we are? There is no one in this Committee at the moment who knows. I see that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) is somewhat amused by that observation. He and I were on the Joint Select Committee, and I venture to say that unless he has private information to which I have no access, he does not know the terms on which the Princes
are acceding to the Federation, that is to say as regards each separate (Prince. There is no common standard of accession, even judging by what the Secretary of State has said this afternoon.
Let me refer to another point. There has been an elaborate effort on the part of the Government to meet the wishes and the tender susceptibilities of the Princes. I understand, and have always understood, that the case of the Government is that in the last resort the British Parliament would have the final word in this matter, that we were the persons to lay down the conditions upon which the future Constitution of India was to be founded. Do we always ask British India with this elaborate care what British India wants? We are almost grovelling on our knees this afternoon to find out what the Princes want. By all means find out what their terms are, but because they state their terms in ever increasing intensity and with ever increasing difficulty for the Government, that is no reason why we should bow the knee to the Princes whenever they choose to raise their terms. I rather suspect that the situation to-day really predicates a position where the Princes are in fact seizing the situation in order to alter the terms, and to make severer bargain terms with the Government than we originally supposed to be the case.
In any case I hope that during these discussions we shall not lose sight of the fact that there are two partners to this Federation, if federation means anything at all—on the one side the Princes and on the other side British India—and I assert that a democratic House of Commons has no right to consider merely the claims and the dictates of autocratic States and Princes, while forgetting altogether the claims and the rights of the more democratic part of India. We are not prepared to accept the view that, as a price to be paid for federation, British-India should be subjected for all time to the demands, the opinions, the point of view of autocratic Princes. Therefore, although we do not approach the problem from the same point of view as certain hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite; although we do not entertain the same feelings as they do, towards the further development of self-government in India; although we want a much larger measure of self-government than they would be
willing to concede, although they obviously wish to arrest development at a certain point much short of that where we would wish to stop—yet all the same we are at one with them in demanding greater clarity in regard to the present situation.
The Secretary of State ought not to ask us this afternoon to allow this development regarding the Princes to proceed further without knowing exactly where we are going to be in relation to it. I suppose that negotiations will take place. The right hon. Gentleman was speaking to the Princes, who are 6,000 miles away from us, and was trying to remove misconceptions, as he called them, and misgivings which the Princes entertained. We too have misgivings and they are very strong and increasing misgivings concerning the implications of this Bill, not merely for the Princes but for the people of British India as well. Every time I read this Bill I am more and more impressed with the fact that we seem to be forging an instrument by which the people of British India are ultimately going to be placed permanently—because there is no provision in the Bill for a change—under the control of the Princes of India. For that reason, and in order that we may have some further clarity introduced into this situation, we support the Motion to report Progress.

5.19 p.m.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: Anyone knowing these Clauses only by the numbers under which they have been mentioned this afternoon, might be misled by the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones). I do not suppose that there is anyone in this Committee who thinks that the Princes are the only people to be considered Or who is not aware of the immensely greater responsibilities that we have—because they are more direct and more personal—to the people of British India than to the rulers of the States outside. But these Clauses, the discussion of which we are asked by this Motion to postpone, are Clauses dealing particularly with the interests of the Princes and with the conditions upon which they shall join the Federation and with the surrender of powers which they should make on joining. If, therefore, the discussion this afternoon turns more particularly on the position of the Indian
States and less particularly upon British India that is because it is a rule of our discussions that they should be appropriate to the subject which is immediately before us.
I pass from the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly—perhaps to return to it—and I desire to say at once that I think the whole Committee, or at any rate the great mass of the Committee must have listened, as I did, with sympathy and with admiration to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India. I am glad to find that he, with his greater knowledge, has formed the same view of the resolution of the Princes and of such indications as he or we have had as to the particular points in regard to which they feel doubt and hesitation, as I had myself formed on reading the public Press. I cannot trace in any one of these various subjects any point that was not present to the minds of the Joint Select Committee; which was not fully discussed with the representatives of the Princes and the Indian delegates in the course of our discussions with them; discussed again among the members of the Committee before ever the chairman undertook to draft his report, and finally discussed and considered in the drafting and amendment of the report itself.
I agree with my right hon. Friend and indeed it is the contention of the Princes themselves in their resolution, that they have not changed their attitude on federation; that from the first they have stated certain conditions and that on such examination as they have been able at present to give to the Bill, they do not think that those conditions are fully met. I am confident that it was the intention of the Joint Select Committee in their report to meet them, and I thought myself that we had met them. I thought there were points that ought to be met and on which the Princes had a right to be reassured, and I thought we had given them that reassurance. I have interpreted the Bill, as far as a layman can, as being the expression in statutory language of the intentions of the Joint Select Committee.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for pointing out that we always understood at the
Joint Select Committee that, while the Princes agreed to put forward their proposals to us and we were trying to meet those proposals, they were giving no final judgment until they had seen the complete picture, and this Bill is the complete picture.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: That is perfectly true, and it has a direct bearing upon the Motion. They cannot see the complete picture except in the form of the Bill, and they will not see it until the Bill itself has been completed and has received the approval of both Houses of Parliament. To adjourn its consideration in order that we may obtain further light upon their proceedings is merely to enter upon a circle which has no ending. They cannot tell you whether they approve of the Bill or not until they see the form in which it stands. We must go forward with our work, trying to remove their apprehensions wherever we find those apprehensions well-founded, trying to meet all that is reasonable in their demands, but not, let it be well understood, willing to or meaning to allow this House to be driven from what this House thinks right or to enter into a "Dutch auction" for the support of the Princes for the proposals.
I am glad to see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) has returned to his place. I was greatly touched by his solicitude about what he thought was the uncomfortable position in which I had been placed, and I hope I may relieve his anxiety—the natural anxiety of so old and dear a friend if he will allow me to say so—by telling him that I am not in the least embarrassed by what I said in earlier discussions in the House of Commons on this subject. I think, on the contrary, that this latest development of the situation confirms, if I may say so, the wisdom of the advice which I ventured to tender to my friends. I know that my right hon. Friend does not agree with me, but then he and I approach this question from different points of view. I approach it from the point of view of a man who is sincerely convinced that a National Government, formed on the broadest basis possible, is our only hope of safety in these difficult times. My right hon. Friend approaches the consideration of this and all other questions from the point of view of a man who has never
been enamoured of the National Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: My right hon. Friend is really doing me an injustice. I have dealt with this Indian question on its merits, and I would have taken exactly the same line as I have taken this afternoon two years before the National Government was formed.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend will not deny, however, that he has no love for the National Government.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I deny the relevance of that to the matter which we are now debating.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Of its relevance the Committee will judge. They will take note of the fact that my right hon. Friend does not deny that he approaches this question, in its present form, from the point of view of a man who has no love for the National Government, but who, as I understand, desires to resume party politics, and, as a first step towards that most desirable end, is presently going into the Lobby with his Socialist opponents. There is another difference and one which perhaps goes still further to explain our different points of view. My right hon. Friend declined to serve on the Joint Select Committee. I spent the best part of two years in a close study of this question, in conference with Indians of all points of view and in discussion with my colleagues in the House of Commons and the Members of another House. The views which I offer to the Committee are the result of long experience in Government, sharpened and augmented by that two years of intimate association with these matters.
I remain of the opinion, and I desire to affirm it with all earnestness to this Committee, that this experiment, this great development in Indian government, will be much more safely undertaken if it be accompanied by the establishment of a Federation of All-India than if the reforms are confined to British India alone. I believe that the interests of the Princes are intimately associated with the British Empire, just as for the same reason our interests are intimately associated with theirs, and I believe that they and we alike will find safety for ourselves and security for that which we hold most dear by their entry into a great
federation which for the first time will consecrate the political unity of all India.
What is the alternative? It would be the establishment of provincial autonomy in all the Provinces. Let me say, in passing, that my right hon. Friend is not quite candid in these latter days when he continuously talks of himself as if he has been from the first a whole-hearted approver of the Simon Commission and a whole-hearted accepter of its report.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I have never said that at any time. The phrase that I have always used was, that I was prepared to act within the ambit of the Statutory Commission's report.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: What a lovely phrase. Ah, if you could govern the world with phrases, the whole world would elect my right hon. Friend as dictator. But I think it is important, perhaps less for ourselves than for audiences outside, to state that my right hon. Friend never has accepted the Simon Report and would not accept it to-day if that alternative were put before him. My right hon. Friend has his own scheme, but it is not the scheme of the Simon Report; it is not a scheme approved by any party to the Round Table Conferences; it would not receive the support of more than a small minority of the Joint Select Committee; and it has been rejected by great majorities in this and the other House. What is it? It is the establishment, not of provincial autonomy, as the Simon Commission recommend, but of a more limited provincial autonomy and to leave the Central Government of India untouched. I believe that to be entering on a fatal course, and I beg both the Princes of India, if my voice can reach them, and Members of this Committee to consider where that will lead. You will create 12 powerful organs of public opinion and at the same moment disappoint all the hopes which they can legitimately hold after the past four years of Indian discussion and conference and of the resolutions of this House. If you establish those bodies and discontent them and render them your enemies in the moment that you establish them, can you find any support for your Government from them?
What will be and what must be their purpose? It must be, of course, to overthrow the Central Government as at present established and to substitute a
system of responsible government at the Centre for British India alone. It is common ground, at any rate, to all of us in these days that responsibility at the Centre can only be granted as part of a federal system including the Indian States. If, by your own act, you refuse to make that federation possible, if you refuse the opportunity to the Princes and to British India to join in such a federation, are you certain that sooner or later—yes, and as things move to-day sooner rather than later—you will not be driven to establishing responsible government at the Centre for British India alone? And do you think you will have done a good day's work for the British Empire or for the connection of India with this country if you have reached that result? What will the Princes think? They will have had offered to them such terms as this House is ready to make for them to-day, which secure them in the just retention of their rights and sovereignty.
There is a plausible case for the adjournment, and I do not criticise my right hon. Friend for his Motion. I am glad he has given us the opportunity of something like a Second Reading debate once more on this question, but I beg the Committee not to be led away. I agree with the hon. Member opposite that in the last resort responsibility rests with this House, and I must say on that that my right hon. Friend who denounces us, his colleagues, members of his party, with having abdicated our responsibilities and with running away from our trust, is at one moment begging the Committee to act upon the vote which the Congress party gave the other day in the Legislature, and at another to wait upon the will of the Princes before this Committee comes to any decision. I do not so understand our responsibilities. We have had two years' examination of this problem of the future of Indian government by the Simon Commission, we have had three years of round table conferences, we have had two years of the most minute inquiry by the Joint Select Committee of the two Houses, and I venture to say that the time has now come when this House Must shoulder its responsibility, must face the problem, and say here and now, after the fullest consideration of all shades of Indian thought and all shades
of opinion here at home, what constitution we are willing to offer and within what limits we are ready to move. It is on us and on us alone that that responsibility rests, and now is the time when we should discharge it.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: I would like to express the thanks of the Committee to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) for the very clear statement he has made of what I believe is the position of the majority of the Committee. I do not follow him altogether in the statement that we have to leave everything to the decision of this House, because this is not our constitution that we are dealing with, and we are dealing, not with conditions under which we ourselves are to live, but with a constitution and with conditions that must be very much more intimate and important to Indians than they can be to us. But with that qualification, I will associate myself, if he will allow me to say so, with his statement. If there be any criticism that I would like to make as far as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State is concerned, it is that in the course of his speech just now—I hope I misunderstood him—he said that when further representations were made by the Princes, we should be prepared to meet them in all particulars.

Sir S. HOARE: indicated dissent.

Mr. FOOT: I have not an exact note of the right hon. Gentleman's words, but he led the Committee to think that when the further representations were made, it was almost for the Princes to ask and for us to give. I do not think that was in his mind, but I am afraid it was in his words.

Sir S. HOARE: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for giving way. Let me at once clear up the point, if there be any misunderstanding. All that I meant to say, whatever I may have said, was that we would carry out the agreements. And when I said "agreements," I did not mean any secret undertakings; I meant the results of the long period of consideration and examination, and I meant no more than that.

Mr. FOOT: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman -for his statement, because it will relieve my mind upon a
point of considerable importance; and, as far as those of us on these benches are concerned, we are glad the right hon. Gentleman has decided that we shall proceed with the discussion on the Bill, because we agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that if any postponement took place now, particularly upon the ground that is suggested by the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), it would be an indefinite postponement. The right hon. Gentleman's proposal was that you, Sir, should now leave the Chair and that the Committee should adjourn. He was not able to suggest when again we should meet. I wonder when he would like us to meet again to discuss this Bill? His concern is not for its postponement. His concern is for the defeat of the Bill, and he would like postponement, not while we are discussing these few outstanding questions. His proposal is not merely a dilatory proposal; it was intended to kill the Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has told us that it is desirable that we should know where we stand in relation to the Princes as quickly as possible, and he has foreshadowed a very large number of Amendments that are to be put on the Order Paper. I suggest that before these proposals are made, we shall see what the Amendments are.

Mr. FOOT: I know that, as the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has said, all that can be put into the customary phrases of this House, but the right hon. Member for Epping has made it clear from the beginning that he is against the Bill, and, if we met again to discuss this matter, it would not be the desire of the right hon. Gentleman that we should do it. He wants a postponement for the longest possible time. I know very well, and the Committee knows very well, that if the Bill were postponed, it would be postponed in order to take what steps? We are apparently to wait for a communication that may come from the Princes. They are to meet again and to consider what may be put before them by the Viceroy and the Secretary of State. We do not know what may be the Arrangements of the States themselves. It is not the simplest thing in the world to call together the Chamber of Princes. They are not able to speak with full authority,
because there are many who are not members of the Chamber of Princes at all, and if a decision were made by some of the Princes, it might not be acquiesced in by the others. Before the Committee could proceed with the Bill again upon Clauses 5 and 6 and the Clauses that deal with federation, there would be a postponement that would render impossible, probably, the carrying of the Bill this year.
I know that is the intention of many Members as things are. The programme has been so set out before the House that we know that it will take until Whitsuntide before the Bill is through this House. There will have to be the prolonged debates which will take place in another House before we rise for the vacation. Most of the time will be taken if the Bill is to be secured, and if anyone thinks that its postponement until another year will not create the most serious difficulties, it, is because they have not thought about this problem and have not studied Indian conditions. The whole of Indian history in the last 25 years has been a comment on being too late. The delay between the declaration of Mr. Montagu in 1917 and the passing of the Bill in 1919 was a dangerous delay in Indian history. The delay which took place between the first Round Table Conference at the end of 1930 and the introduction of this Measure has given rise to opportunities for mischief-makers in both India and this country. Every delay gives them a full opportunity, just as this particular occasion has arisen for the mischief-makers in this country. I have had to depend on the Press to-day, as other Members have, for their information. The right, hon. Gentleman brought his sheaf of newspaper cuttings, but has he seen them all? In this morning's Press there was a demand for the resignation of the Secretary for State on this matter—

Mr. CHURCHILL: "Secretary of State"—not "for State."

Mr. FOOT: I do not suppose the title would matter if the resignation were insisted on. In one of the leading papers of the country there is a suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has misled the House and the country. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear!"] I am sorry to know that that
has any support in this House. This newspaper states:
Resignation seems to be the natural step for him to take, for it is impossible to suppose that, in face of the pledges which we have quoted and others of a similar nature which star the pages of Hansard and the Press, he can retain his office and proceed with the Bill.
I am not of the right hon. Gentleman's party, but I have had an opportunity more than most Members of knowing something of the burden that has rested on his shoulders. We have an admiration for the candour with which he has dealt with his case all through. That, I think, may best come from a political opponent and one who does not even support the National Government as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham does. We know that this responsibility has been in his hands and that throughout he has shown candour in dealing with not only the Members of the Joint Select Committee, but with the delegates who came from India. The tribute which they paid was that they had been treated all through with complete candour. The suggestion that is now being made, that the House is being misled, and apparently deliberately misled, by the right hon. Gentleman, is one that should never have appeared in the columns of our English Press. It affords an opportunity for the mischief-maker, and those who have been communicating with the Princes all along are now perhaps seeing the result of their work. [Interruption.] I am referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft).

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he includes the Viceroy of India?

Mr. FOOT: Most people who know the situation in India, or who try to understand it from their morning's newspapers, read the news to-day with somewhat grave apprehensions and sinking of heart. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping read that news with joy, and the news which was received last night with delectation. He has come here to-day with the cry, "I have told you so, and I am right," and he has persisted in making statements for which there is absolutely no foundation. He has repeated the old story that the Princes were coming in as a result of some sub
terannean arrangement with Congress in which they squared each other. That is a statement which reflects upon the Princes and is in conflict with their public utterances. It gives the lie to their public utterances, and is repeated in the House of Commons to-day without any authority whatever. I always give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he desires to interrupt me. I wanted to intervene when he was speaking to ask him what authority there was for that statement. It is the statement in which the Princes, men holding very high positions who ought to be able to assist us in years to come as friends of this country, are practically held up as men who say one thing in public and hold different views in private, and are making arrangements that are discreditable to themselves and to the States they represent. If there be authority for the right hon. Gentleman's statement will the authority be produced? If it is not produced, will the right hon. Gentleman drop that slander once for all?
Another newspaper comment is the message that has been sent to the Princes to-day. We are informed on the authority of a Member of another House, Lord Rothermere, that a message has been sent. Let the Committee turn to the message that was sent by Lord Rothermere to the Princes following upon their decision. There is no doubt as to his position; he has greeted this news with joy. His message was:
We congratulate the Princes on their bold and decided action against the India Bill. It is the more salutary because notoriously great pressure has been applied to secure their acceptation of that measure.
The statement that great pressure has been used has been denied by the Secretary of State in this House. It was denied by the Princes themselves at the Round Table Conference when a question was specifically put in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping. In spite of that denial, the Noble Lord, in sending his congratulations, repeats what is a slander on the Government and on the Princes themselves. He writes further that this message would be read by 7,000,000 people, that they are standing for great principles, and that this is a Bill "which makes a monstrous assault on the treaties securing their rights." Who is the friend of this country in matters of this kind?
The message is sent to the Princes at a time of great excitement in India, and Lord Rothermere says that this Bill, which is, after all, a fair attempt to deal with the different interests that exist in India, is a monstrous attack upon their rights. I suggest that that is a letter containing falsehoods and slanderous attacks on those who are responsible for affairs at this time. It is the letter of a megalomaniac, and one which ought to be condemned by all public opinion. I would like to know whether among those who are associated with the attack upon this Bill there is anyone who will get up and dare to endorse the message which Lord Rothermere told the Princes will be read by 7,000,000 people and endorsed by the people of this country Who is Lord Rothermere to affect to speak for the people of this country? Let the Princes know that if they are to rely on Lord Rothermere—it is Sir Oswald Mosley one day, and the Princes of India the next—his friendship is a very unsubstantial foundation.
I want an assurance that in this matter the Princes are not able to make this House pay any price that they will. I would like the Princes to realise what the danger is. If the scheme broke down, and if the Rothermeres of this country were the people of the country, what would happen then? The demand for Indian reform cannot be gainsaid. No one can suggest that because of a failure of the Princes to co-operate the demands of the people of India can be set back. They would be entitled to say, if this arrangement could not be made, that their proper rights must be considered. Let the Princes consider what their position would be if there were established, as there would have to be established in order to meet Indian opinion, self-government in the great Provinces side by side with Princes who could not take their share in the development of their country? We do not ask the Princes to come into a federation for our sake in particular, although we should welcome them but as a steadying and substantial factor in Indian life. Nevertheless, there are the people of British India to be considered, and if the Princes stood aside, the people of India would be entitled to come to this House and ask that their proper claims should be met. If that course had to be taken under some Bill other than this Bill, the Princes might
look upon the day when they failed to take their share, following upon the declarations they have made, as the worst day in their history.
We have to take India with all its facts. The States are there as an essential part of Indian life, representing one-quarter of its people and a very essential part of its history and philosophy. We must do what we can with the immediate situation, and I believe that, as a result of the policy which is now being adopted, there will be wise co-operation on the part of the Princes. Let their proper rights be met. Let us go so far and no farther. To go any further or to show any weakness on the part of this House in meeting their case would be the most vital mistake. I can imagine nothing worse from that standpoint that that we should suspend the proceedings of the High Court of Parliament because of a resolution that was adopted yesterday at Bombay by the Princes, as the right hon. Gentleman would if he had his will. He said the other day that we should not proceed unless we asked the present Legislative Assembly what they wanted to do, and that we should not proceed until we knew what the provincial assemblies wanted. Where is the authority of the High Court of Parliament—

Mr. CHURCHILL: I did not say anything of the sort. The amendment was that it should not come into operation until the Legislative Assembly had assented.

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman makes it worse now. After Parliament has gone through all the procedure on this Bill and the Bill has received the assent of His Majesty, we are to go to the present Legislative Assembly and say, "Before this Bill can pass into law and before the will of Parliament can be implemented, will you tell us whether we can receive your assent?"

Mr. CHURCHILL: That is exactly the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) has just made with regard to the Princes—we are to carry the whole Bill through notwithstanding what they say, and in the end they have to say whether they want it.

Mr. FOOT: If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is a paraphrase of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman
the Member for West Birmingham, I do not think anyone else shares his opinion. I only put this last suggestion to the House. The Princes passed their resolution after what must have, been a short discussion on a complicated Measure, unaware of some of the amendments that are before the House, and what would give the Princes more power to determine the conditions of this Bill than the fact that Parliament suspends its proceedings, it may be for weeks, it may be for an indeterminate time, and to say to them, "Before we go on with this Measure, with which we have been charged by the responsibility of past years, please let us know what your wishes are, and when your wishes are known we will proceed with this Measure?" I say nothing would be more calculated to raise the price that may be charged against us by those who may not have a sense of high responsibility. [HON. MEMBERS: "The price?"] Among many Princes do you not think there are some—or are there not some—who are concerned first of all for their own interests rather than the general interest of India? It is that part of that element that you would be encouraging.

Mr. DIXEY: The hon. Member has just referred to a price that is being paid. What does he mean? [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend has said what he thinks, but what does the hon. Member think?

Mr. FOOT: The suggestion has been made here to-day that demands are being made by the Princes. If you do not like the word "price," take the word "demand."If" price" gives offence to my hon. Friend, I will substitute the word "demand." I suggest that nothing is more likely to harden the demands of those with whom we are concerned in this matter than the suspension of the proceedings of Parliament. Already we have given a great deal of time to this matter. There are large questions of public policy waiting for discussion in the first six days of the Committee stage, and I ask that the proposal of the Minister may be supported and that we may go on to deal with the merits of this great Measure.

6.2 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I venture to submit to my bon, Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) that he is
importing a good deal of prejudice into this Debate. The Committee finds itself in the most extraordinary position, which will not be smoothed away by abuse of the "Daily Mail" and the "Morning Post." I think it is very difficult to exaggerate the significance of the statement we heard from the Secretary of State this afternoon. It is quite clear from what he told the Committee that there is a fundamental cleavage of opinion, a fundamental difference of opinion, between the Government and the Princes on this Bill. The question of whether the act of accession should mean accession to the whole Bill except for subjects reserved or a limited accession Merely as to those subjects which are included in the Instrument raises an absolutely fundamental point. It is a point that anyone who has studied any constitution knows to be a fundamental matter. I would ask the Committee to consider what it would mean suppose the Princes gained their point. Suppose their accession is limited in respect to a certain list of subjects for which they stipulate. How is that going to affect the rest of the provisions of the Bill? How is that going to affect the matter we were discussing last, the proportion of States that is necessary before federation can operate? If we are going to be content with a bare 50 per cent. of the Princes, is it going to be 50 per cent. of all the Princes or simply of those subjects on which 50 per cent. have signed Instruments? Where the Instruments overlap we shall clearly get a much lower proportion than 50 per cent. in regard to a great many important subjects. Therefore, if we are content with a bare majority, and every Prince is coming in on different terms, we at once get an accession which represents a great deal less than half the subjects on which the Princes are federated. How will that operate in the Legislative Assembly? Will the Princes be entitled to vote on subjects not covered by their Instruments of Accession?
It can be seen at once that this is an absolutely fundamental point, and it is amazing to me that the Secretary of State for India was unaware of this cleavage of opinion between him and the Princes. If I can have the right hon. Gentleman's attention for one minute, I should like to question him on this subject. He told the Committee, if I understood him cor
rectly, that the first he knew of this was on Sunday, when he received a telegram. Did I correctly understand him to say that he was unaware until last Sunday that the Princes attached vital importance to this condition of the manner of accession, because, if that is the case, it appears to me to be a most amazing thing. The matter has been before the Government and the Princes for many months, and if the Secretary of State had been candid with the Princes he surely ought to have given them to understand months ago that the procedure which the Government is quite rightly, in my view, insisting on, would be a fundamental part of the Bill.

Sir S. HOARE: The right hon. Member has accused me of want of candour, and I must at once reply to that charge. My view has been known to the Princes not for weeks only and not for months only, but for years. We have never varied from this position at all, and, so far as I know, the representatives of the Princes themselves always accepted it.

Viscount WOLMER: It seems to me the Princes are also accusing the Secretary of State of want of candour. That is the burden of their complaint, and I think the Secretary of State will find in the end that he will not save himself trouble by trying to get people to agree to the same scheme for reasons which are really incompatible. It is because the true implications of federation have never been squarely faced by the Princes until this moment that they are now beginning to find out the immense difficulties with which we are confronted. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to us in his speech not to raise obstacles. It is not we who are raising obstacles. The obstacles are there, but the right hon. Gentleman is ignoring them, and we shall never solve the problem by ignoring the obstacles. If I may say so, the Government have brought this situation entirely on themselves. If they had given us a proper interval between the Second Reading of the Bill and the Committee, every one of these points could have been considered before the Committee stage was entered upon, and the Government could then have indicated by Amendments how far they were prepared to go to meet the Princes' point. The hon. Member for Bodmin and the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr.
Morgan Jones) used language this afternoon which seemed to indicate that they were not prepared to go beyond a certain point to meet the Princes. I should like to know exactly what they mean. Are they prepared to proceed with federation on a British Indian basis? Is that going to be the next point of surrender? Up to now, every authority which has examined the matter has pronounced that to be the worst possible solution of the Indian problem.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The present Bill is before the House and I want to see it carried into law. If that be impossible I shall be prepared, with my friends, to consider the new position that arises.

Viscount WOLMER: That is no answer at all. I say to my hon. Friends that the plain fact of the matter is that we cannot bring about a federation of All-India without coming to an agreement with the Princes, and if we find at this juncture that the Princes have understood all along something fundamentally different from what the Government have understood, then surely it is reasonable to ask for an interval of a few days until this extraordinary situation has been cleared up. Where are we? We are right in the middle of the Clauses which deal with federation and the position of the Princes, and we shall be discussing every Amendment which will come before us in the next few days in complete ignorance of whether the Government will not come down to ask us to recommit the Bill so that all our work can be undone, or reverse on Report stage what we are going to do this week and next. It is not as if the Government have not plenty of other things to do. Why cannot they get on with various schemes of social reform for a fortnight or three weeks; why cannot they take some other business for a fortnight or three weeks, until they have settled with the Princes what the Bill really does mean, till they have cleared up these charges of breach of faith and come to an agreement with the Princes? Then the House will know what the terms of the Princes are, and we shall be able to discuss the Bill in Committee with the data in front of us. Is not that the common sense proposal?
If the ancient dignity of this House were respected to-day as it was in former generations, that would have been done as a matter of course. In the nineteenth century—and, after all, we are importing
nineteenth century principles into India—no one would have thought of asking the House of Commons to proceed with a Bill of this magnitude after a situation of this sort had arisen. More than two or three weeks would have been allowed in which these points could be cleared up. The Government have got into this difficulty, because, in the first place, they attempted what was impossible; they attempted to build a federation when they had not got the materials out of which to build it. In their anxiety to do this they used language—I do not say that it was intentional—which undoubtedly led a large section of the Princes to believe that they could come in on terms which were different from those which were really intended or were really possible. Now they find themselves in this impasse. We have been charged with making capital out of the Princes. We have not brought the Princes into this matter. It is the Government who have brought the Princes into this problem, and they are reaping the first of the results that follow from their mistake. I submit that we shall be treating this question sensibly and in the most practical manner if we get this fundamental position cleared up before we go further. To ask the Committee to proceed in the present circumstances is to ask the Committee to play a game of blind man's buff.

6.15 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) who has just spoken, charged the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot), with introducing prejudice into the Debate. I shall not introduce any prejudice into the Debate, but I shall endeavour to answer the points which the Noble Lord has just raised. My Noble Friend has made a very serious charge against the Secretary of State, and I am sure he would not have made it unless he sincerely meant it; therefore, it is necessary that that charge should be answered. He has followed the lead of the "Daily Mail," which will report his speech. He has accused the Secretary of State of want of candour. [Interruption.] I do not know why my Noble Friend has any reason to be ashamed of that. If he does not wish to be on the side of the "Daily Mail,' I am very glad to be assured of that. He follows, at any rate, the "Daily Mail"
in accusing the Secretary of State of want of candour.
It will be generally agreed, I think, and I will pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), that throughout these discussions he and the other Conservative opponents of the Bill have avoided, so far as possible, anything in the nature of personal attack. The Debates have been conducted on a high level and upon the basis of discussing the questions at issue. But quite obviously the charge of want of candour is a very serious one when made not only by one Member against another but a fortiori by a colleague in one party against another Member of that party and it is, therefore, necessary to answer the charge. The charge has also been made outside that the Secretary of State has deliberately misled the House. Both charges are wholly unjustifiable. Speaking, so far as I know, with the full authority of the Joint Select Committee, that is of my colleagues on it, I say—I do not think they would differ from this—that every facet and aspect of the Princes' contentions was considered by the Joint Select Committee in consultation with their representatives. Every single point that could be brought forward by their representatives was put forward, and we discussed them at great length. The discussions were conducted on a high level, and in no case can it be claimed that their views were either overlooked by our Committee or that any divergence of view was disclosed in the course of the discussion which could be regarded as a kind of unclimbable fence against their participation in federation.
Judging from the charge that the Secretary of State has misled the House, one would think that there has been no discussion of this matter, and that we had heard of the Princes' views for the first time. We have been hearing them for two years. If my Noble Friend wants to bring a charge of want of candour he had better bring it not against the Secretary of State but against the whole of the Joint Select Committee, and incidentally against the whole of the House of Commons for accepting the Committee's report. I claim that this is clearly a case of misunderstanding or of misgivings as to the effect of proposals, and I propose to say a few words as to how those misgivings or misunderstandings
may have arisen. My Noble Friend says that there is a fundamental difference of opinion, but, that was disposed of by the speech of the Secretary of State. Speaking, as I think my Noble Friend will be prepared to admit, with rather more technical knowledge of the subject than he possesses, I say that I do not believe that a single one of the questions to which the Secretary of State refers, quoting from the telegram which has been sent, is incapable of being settled by discussion in this House or out of this House. If we have such a discussion it will show if and how the difficulties of reconciling the Princes to federation can be overcome. I say deliberately, "if and how," and I cannot understand the reasonableness of the proposal that because the Princes have said that they are opposed to certain features of the Bill, we should put off any further discussion.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, who is one of the most skilful debaters I have heard during the 30 years I have been in this House, was all the time up against the dialectical difficulty that he could not claim that the Princes by their resolution had rejected federation. He knows he cannot; all they have said is that the Bill in its present form is—I think their words are—open to grave objection. That is not a reason for not discussing the Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Not at all, but it is a reason for knowing the basis on which we are to discuss it.

Earl WINTERTON: In that case I will apply the argument which was put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and that is, since when has this House been guided by any outside power as to the way in which it shall carry on its discussion?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State is going to put a series of important Amendments on the Paper. Those Amendments are vital to the structure and shape of this Clause, and I suggest that we know them, before we embark on the discussion of the Clause. [Interruption.]

Earl WINTERTON: The curious thing is that, as the Secretary of State has just said, some of those Amendments have been on the Paper for at least a
week. My last word on this point is that the Princes, who are determined to stand by certain principles, have never rejected federation, or resiled from their original announcement to enter federation under certain conditions. Let the Committee note how very different their attitude is from that of the Conservative opponents of the Bill. Let it be noted that the Princes' attitude is that in their opinion, rightly or wrongly, the Bill does not satisfy the conditions for entering federation which they regard as essential. That is a very different attitude from that of my right hon. Friend and his friends. They have been anxious throughout to secure the Princes as agents or as allies for destroying the Bill, and to this end there has been vast newspaper propaganda and pompous pontifical messages by proprietors of newspapers, a most extraordinary form of propaganda. Reference was made by the hon. Member for Bodmin to the proud claim of a gentleman whom I might describe as the William Randolph Hearst of Great Britain. Anyone who knows America will know exactly the significance of that. We have had a proud claim from him that he can reach 7,000,000 people in this country. It is unfortunate, if that be true, that he does not choose to tell those 7,000,000 people both sides of the truth. Up till now he has only given his 7,000,000 auditors one speech on the Second Reading in favour of the Bill and 12 speeches against it. We have had deputations, which I must say seem singularly ill-equipped for the purpose, to India accompanied by tendentious appeals in India by Indian journalists representing English journals.
We have had the whole of this propaganda—to what end? Let the Committee realise that it has been in order that the plan of my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, a perfectly simple one, shall be put into operation, namely, that of destroying the 'Government of India Bill through the action of the Princes. That is, I am sure, doing no injustice to these gentlemen against whom I would not say a single word, but it is not unreasonable to suppose that some of them may be influenced to a greater extent than the circumstances justify by this propaganda, and may have believed that my Noble Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping have greater influence in the Conservative party than recent
events have proved them to have. What is the difference—and this is my last point—between my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, with my Noble Friend, who are opposing the Bill within the Conservative party, and the great majority of the House? I think I can claim that the difference is that the great majority of the House wish to see the Princes' difficulties resolved and their doubts removed, whereas it is the avowed and perfectly sincere object of the supporters of the Motion, to have them retained. It is only natural in the circumstances that they should want the Clauses postponed so that these cannot be discussed to-day.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What cannot be discussed to-clay?

Earl WINTERTON: These Clauses upon which we are about to enter. My right hon. Friend is carrying out a perfectly legitimate rearguard action or delaying campaign. He is perfectly entitled to do it and I cannot complain, but I want the Committee to realise what his real motives are. His motives are not the future government of India through the agency of the Bill; his real motive is to destroy the Bill, and the Committee should not be influenced by that motive. We have by an enormous majority passed the Second Reading of the Bill and adopted the report of our Committee and I believe that with good will we can solve these problems. I believe that is negotiation with the accredited representatives of the Princes and of His Majesty's Government we can get over the difficulties. On the Joint Select Committee I remember that, in the course of its discussions, there were occasions when the negotiations looked like breaking down. I notice a disposition on the part of hon. Members to jeer when reference has been made to negotiation, but how can a great issue of this kind be decided except by negotiation? Just as in the case of our international conferences there must be view-points and counter views put up to them, suggestions that those views can better be met in another way, and all the ebb and flow that is usual in negotiation, so we have had that again and again, and it is arising to-day in the case of the Princes' opposition. It can be resolved by good will.
It certainly will not be resolved by my right hon. Friends; they have no good
will towards the future government of India as understood by the great majority of Members of this House. I further say that they have no good will towards the future government of India in a way which would be accepted by any majority of voters in the country. If my hon. Friends broke away from the Tory party to-morrow and formed a party of their own, they would not get one-tenth of the electors to support them. What is the use of delaying the Bill further? Let us try in this Committee to remove the difficulties and doubts. Let us try to meet the Princes' points. Let us, as has been very wisely pointed out, take the responsibility upon our shoulders. We have had years of discussion. What will be thought in the world and in India if we put off this matter further? Let it be resolved once and for all. Let this House pass a Bill which is worthy of its great traditions.

6.29 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON: The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has committed what is the worst mistake in controversy; he has imputed motives.

Earl WINTERTON: I must take objection to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said. I think it shows some coolness on his part to accuse me of imputing motives when one of his nearest colleagues has just accused the Secretary of State of want of candour.

Colonel GRETTON: What another Member of the House may have done does not excuse the Noble Lord for following his example. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) undoubtedly imputed motives to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) and others in the Committee. That is always a mistake in controversy, and I want to draw attention to the fact. Why is this motive imputed? There have been, as it seems to me, a great many Second Reading speeches, ranging over the whole ground, but what we have to do is to view as practical men the situation with which we are confronted. The Secretary of State, at the commencement of his remarks, said he had received a telegram making an announcement which somewhat surprised him. We have seen the telegram which was published, but we have not had the advantage of seeing
the other telegrams, and surely some further information will be necessary before the whole position is in the possession either of the Government or of the House. We do not know whether the Secretary of State's reading of the situation is a correct one; he may be mistaken. I am not accusing him of want of candour to the House, but the situation and the resolution took him by surprise. Evidently he is not quite a reliable guide on these matters, and we want further time in order to ascertain the real bearing of the facts and the real meaning of what is being done. It is surely not right to ask Parliament or a Committee of the House of Commons to proceed with a Bill without having these matters of information.
I only rise, as an old Parliamentarian, to put the case against the invasion of what has been the invariable practice in the past. Where an unforeseen situation arises, with regard to which full information is not available, surely we ought not to proceed until we have the facts before us. After all, we have our business to do in the House, but the official Opposition on the Labour benches do not always seem to realise what is an essential part of the duty of an Opposition when the Parliamentary machine is at work. It is their business to criticise, not always in an unfriendly spirit, or in a spirit of determined opposition. The Parliamentary machine cannot work unless criticism and examination are constantly applied, not only to legislation, but to the proceedings and administration of the Government. Because the official Opposition have not applied that principle, is there any reason why other Members of the House should not take up the duties which they have not understood or carried out in the way that the practice of Parliament requires? On that ground alone I consider that we are justified in putting down Amendments and offering criticism. Because we are trying to learn what is behind the Government's proposals, we should not be blamed either for contumacious or unnecessary opposition, for we are carrying out the duties of an official Opposition at a time when the machinery of Parliament requires it.

6.35 p.m.

Sir H. CROFT: I will not follow the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham
(Earl Winterton) in the vigorous speech which he recently delivered, but he seemed to me to be saying very much the same things as were said by the Secretary of State and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). I would only say that I think perhaps he was hardly accurate in suggesting that the decision of the Princes amounted to nothing that could be called rejection. I would remind him that this unanimous vote of the Princes declared that the Bill as it stands was not acceptable on fundamental points—

Earl WINTERTON: I never denied that; I said it did not reject federation.

Sir H. CROFT: I am glad that my Noble Friend agrees on that very important sentence. He referred also to propaganda, public and private, in India. I hope he will accept from me the assurance that, as far as I know, no attempt whatever was made in any way to make contact with the Princes in India until it became abundantly clear to us that every effort was being made to persuade them to agree to these proposals for federation. I hope my Noble Friend will accept that, and I think that, if he does so, some of the acerbity of his remarks will not recur in any future speeches that he may make on the subject.
The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) described all those who hold the views which I hold as mischief-makers. I cannot help thinking that his forerunners in the great Liberal party of the old days would not have regarded Unionists as mischief-makers if they attempted to convince the House of Commons that this country was engaged in a perilous undertaking in breaking up the Union, and I cannot think that, on a great and mighty subject like this, it is really helping the cause of reform in India to regard as mischief-makers those who hold these views as strongly as some of us do. The hon. Gentleman particularly wished for information on some questions with regard to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) had said. Had he been here, I would have asked him whether it had not been stated in the "Statesman" newspaper in India, that these conversations had been taking place and that they knew of them for more than a year
between certain Princes—a very small minority—and members of the Congress party, in order to try to come to some common understanding. I think that perhaps the Noble Lord, Lord Reading, might be able to tell us whether those rumours were correct or not.
I want now to refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, and the attitude which he took. I am sorry that he is not in the Committee at the moment; I told him I was going to refer to what he said. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham really said this: Pass the whole Bill, and then tell India, "You have got to have it." I do not think that that is a wrong interpretation. Then he said: "As we go along, after we have done that, let us try to meet all the demands of the Princes." But that means the re-introduction of practically a new Bill—recommitting the whole Bill. If you are going to have an immense range of Amendments covering these various points, it really means that the time of the House is going to be grievously wasted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham suggested that some prejudice had been brought into this matter simply because we did not all of us like the National Government. I do not know what that has to do with this Motion. He said that the National Government was our only hope.
I am not going to refer to that any more—because it seems to me to be outside the question—than to say that the same right hon. Gentleman said in 1918 that, if the other immortal coalition ever came to a decease, as we hope this coalition will not, in no circumstances would the Conservative party ever again win in the country. I only mention that in order that some people may not be too fearful of the days to come. When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in this Chamber on a previous occasion, three years ago, he said that the real, proper method is to build up your Government in the towns and villages, without which—I think I am using almost his exact words—no constitutional reforms could hope to succeed. I only wish he were here, in order that I might tell him, since he asked us what our alternative was, that the warning he gave to the Government, in his great and powerful
speech on that occasion, not to go ahead until they had established a panchayat system in the villages, was one that he might favourably consider at the present time.
I come now to the Secretary of State, and I want to say at once that from start to finish in these discussions I have always received the greatest courtesy from the right hon. Gentleman. Nobody could have been fairer. We have had some controversy in the newspapers and elsewhere on this very question, but I have always received the greatest courtesy at his hands, and I am grateful for it. I have attempted to say in this Chamber on no fewer than five occasions, I think always in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, that only a small minority of the Princes desired this federal form of Government. I should not have repeated that again and again unless I had very good reasons for believing it. I do not know if it is considered dishonourable, but I have several friends among the Princes of India, who write and tell me what their views are, and, if I try to give a general idea of what the atmosphere is among the Princes, I think I am only doing my duty as a British citizen and a Member of Parliament, in order that we may not excite in our breasts false hopes as to what the Princes may or may not mean.
We have told the right hon. Gentleman that we thought the Princes were going to take this action; we have told him we thought that every section of opinion in India was going to take this action; and it has happened. No doubt he hoped that it would not happen. I think he has been, perhaps, the finest optimistic example of what Mr. Micawber ought to be throughout these discussions. But the fact unfortunately remains that the popular movements in India have repudiated this reform. The hon. Member for Bodmin took my right hon. Friend to task for having paid any serious attention to the decision of the Congress, to the decision of the Indian Liberals, to the decision of the Legislative Assembly. I am not quite sure whether, when he is saying that, he is true to the position of the late Mr. Gladstone, who did pay some attention to any popular machinery which might exist in any country. The fact remains that India, through every possible organisation that exists to-day,
has told you emphatically that she did not wish for these particular reforms.
Now we have the Princes, who have passed this unanimous resolution. I think there were 100 Princes present, including, as my right hon. Friend has mentioned, all those great Princes representative of Hyderabad, Mysore, Travancore, Baroda and Bikaner, who up to now have always been understood to be leaning rather in the direction of His Majesty's Government, although the great mass of the Princes lean the other way. I suggest to the Secretary of State that it is fair to say that, when the House of Commons turned right away from the provisions and standpoint of the Simon Commission, the Conservative organisations—and I am entitled to say this since so many Members of the House are members of the Conservative party—were primarily encouraged to support the policy of the Government by the belief that there was really a strong desire on the part of the Princes of India to come in.
This was the point that was made with great eloquence by the Leader of the party at the Queen's Hall, when he quoted a speech of the Secretary of State and when we were told that there was an entirely new fact. It was followed immediately by my right lion. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) telling us that we were wrong to try to fob off this proposal of an advisory council upon the Princes. It was followed. by no less a statesman than Lord Derby, who told us that there was this great new fact, and all of them, including the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, emphasised this great point, that we had this new fact. All those speeches were directed to the fact that we should support the Government's plan because we must not thwart the will of the great loyal Princes who stood so nobly by us in the War, and we must not deprive them of what they desire. The vast majority of them have never wanted this policy and there is an entirely new situation to-day. I am convinced that the Secretary of State until recently was not aware how deep-seated the feeling was among the Princes. He will remember the correspondence that I had with him in the "Times" in March last when he took me to task for having warned the country that this was the attitude of the Princes. If he reads
that correspondence to-day he will see that I was merely stating what is now known to be a fact, that the vast majority of the Princes are not enthusiastic for these reforms, but regard them with dread.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us what is his authority for that statement as against the explicit statements made at the three Round Table Conferences?

Sir H. CROFT: I think the hon. Member missed what I said earlier on. I have always known that four or five Princes professing to speak on behalf of the Princes, but with no mandate from the whole of them, made this announcement in the early days. I am aware that the Maharajas of Bikaner, Alwar and Cashmere came to London without any sanction from the whole of the Princes and that, after hearing them, Lord Reading said that we were now committed to this great reform. If that was not literally correct then, that there was a vast majority against these proposals, surely the indications now show that the Princes are absolutely united against the proposals in the Bill. That being the case, I submit that to proceed with Clauses 5, 6 and 7 when the whole basis of those Clauses may have to be altered is something that has never been known before in Parliament. Could not the right hon. Gentleman delay proceedings for a fortnight and get on with other important business, such as the Dominions Secretary has indicated, duties on foreign meat, and so on, all of which has to be done? We will stand by our pledge as to the total number of days.
May I remind the right hon. Gentleman how the Princes have been treated? Will the House remember the date en which they received the Bill? Will they remember the distance of India? Do they realise that between Second Reading and Committee there were only seven or eight days? How was it possible for the Princes of India, scattered over thousands of miles of territory, to get together and to appreciate the real effect of the Bill? Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the Princes had not received from their legal advisers any opinion on the printed Bill as it came before the House when the Committee stage actually
started, and is that surprising when everyone knows, who has been trying to study it, that it is taking all of us who are putting our minds to it many hours of every single day in order to master one quarter of the Bill. How could the Princes have known all the effects and implications of this great Measure? You are not dealing with some small point. You are dealing with the whole life and future of these great independent States which have the most solemn pledge of Queen Victoria, repeated by every King Emperor, that their privileges, their rights and their dignities shall remain inviolate and inviolable. We have no right to rush on with the Bill and say to them, "Take it or leave it," or, "Perhaps we may introduce some small amendments on Report." The path of dignity, the path of precedent and the path of tradition demand that we shall not go forward with these federal Clauses until we know from the Princes of India what are the fundamental changes that they demand in the Bill.

6.51 p.m.

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: My hon. and gallant Friend has made some, to me, remarkable statements. I hope the Committee will allow me to refer to two of them particularly. The first is that in his view the whole of the Princes of India had now unanimously declared against the principles set out in the Bill. This must mean against the principle of Federation. If I believed that that was the case, I should agree, not only with the proposal now before the Committee, but that the whole position of the Government and those who have supported these reforms would require reconsideration. But I am profoundly convinced that my hon. and gallant Friend is labouring under a complete misapprehension when he makes that statement. First of all, it is clear from statements which have been made by the representatives of the Princes from the time of the first Round Table Conference that they are not opposed to the principle of Federation. I rather hesitate ever to refer to personal experiences in this House but perhaps in the special circumstances of to-day the Committee will allow me to add that it was my good fortune to be a visitor to the Chamber of Princes in Delhi three or four weeks
ago, when I heard the Chancellor of the Chamber make a most categorical statement in favour of Federation supported by other leading rulers, speaking not only for themselves but, at any rate, for a large number of the Princes of India. It is, therefore, idle for my hon. and gallant Friend to make the categorical statement that this telegram that has been received shows that all the Princes of India are fundamentally opposed to the system of Federation as set out in the Bill.
A second statement that he made which I question very much is the statement that has been repeated so often before that undue and unfair pressure was brought on the Princes at various dates in the past to induce them to agree to 'a system of federation and that this pressure was brought upon them in some way or other by the Government. When I have questioned those who made these statements before, we have always been answered in. this way, "Oh, yes, but that is not the real point. The pressure really came when the Viceroy was brought in to bring pressure upon the Princes."

Sir H. CROFT: My hon. Friend will not deny that the Viceroy himself, at that very session which my hon. Friend attended, admitted that he had done everything he could to advise the Princes to come in.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I am coming to that point. I was saying that this statement has been made over and over again in the last four or five years and categorically and definitely denied by the Princes or their representatives, publicly in letters to the Press, and in front of the Joint Select Committee and on other occasions. In spite of that, when the matter comes up again we are told, "That is true, but we are not really referring to that. We are referring to the steady pressure brought by the Viceroy." My hon. and gallant Friend has helped me very much by giving me a chance to refer once more to this meeting of a few weeks ago. It is probably not within his knowledge that that very question was raised in the Chamber of Princes and speeches were made by prominent Princes stating clearly that there had been no undue pressure by the Viceroy. I had no idea that speeches of that kind were going to be made. They were definitely made by the Princes themselves
acquitting the Viceroy of ever having brought undue pressure to bear upon them. I ask those who continually make the statement that undue pressure has been brought to bear on the Princes to let us know now, finally, once and for all, where their information comes from and what are the grounds for the charge. It has been denied by the Ministers and by the Princes, and their latest statement that it all came from the Viceroy has now been denied by the Princes themselves. It is time that this sort of thing stopped.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: Can my hon. Friend explain the £750,000 tribute that the Princes are going to be excused if they come into the Federation?

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: No. I should at once be called to order. I am dealing with the question whether we should postpone our discussion. The House is asked to do so on the plea that there has been a fundamental change on the question of federation by reason of this telegram. If I agreed that that was the case, I certainly think we should have to postpone consideration, and probably re-consider the whole position. It is because I am convinced that there is no fundamental change in the position of the Princes that it would be the greatest mistake for a moment to consider postponing the discussion of these Clauses.
The position of the Princes, in my humble opinion, is simply this. They are asked to take a very grave and a very great step; the most momentous step in their history probably; a step the future results of which they may not, like the rest of us, be able completely to see. A move like that must be examined most carefully. Faced with a document such as this Bill, difficult enough, I should think, for lawyers to understand, more difficult for non-legal Members of Parliament and perhaps still more difficult for the Princes of India, it is only natural that they should want to get every bit of legal advice that they can, to go into every detail that affects them, to see that at some future time their successors will not accuse them of having omitted to notice some point which will affect the position of the States in the future--it is natural that they should say the Bill, as
it stands, is not exactly acceptable to them.
But I maintain that the statements that have been made so categorically in the last few weeks show that the Princes continue to approve the principle of federation, that they are in favour of federation provided their rights and privileges are properly secured in the manner they have always claimed that they must be secured from the earliest days of the proposed Federation, it will be futile for this Committee to consider postponing further consideration of these Clauses in view of the fact that there will be ample opportunity before the Bill becomes law of dealing with the points brought forward by the Princes, and meeting their legitimate anxieties, in conclusion, I would say that I have marked the statements made to-day by one or two Members regarding the question of giving way. It is not a question of giving way, but a question of this House doing everything possible to meet the legitimate desires of the Princes to the last detail and of honouring every pledge that we have given. Having done that it is the business, the duty, of this House to say what it believes to be in the best interests of India, and in carrying out that duty we cannot be turned aside from the programme to which we have set ourselves after so much labour and inquiry.

7.2 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I cannot think why it is that a mere mention of exalted highnesses immediately turns most of the Conservative party and the whole of the Liberal party into a sort of dog-fight. Really it will be rather hard if, in addition to spoiling India, they come over here and spoil our good manners. The hon. Member the pukka sahib in addressing the Committee endeavoured to mislead it. In fact nearly every speech I have heard from those benches has been an endeavour to mislead the Committee.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): The hon. and gallant Member must not attribute motives of that kind to any hon. Member.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have no doubt that my speeches are regarded even by pukka sahibs as attempts also to mislead the House. Who in their wildest moments would dare to accuse our only Secretary
of State for India of attempting to mislead the House? He cannot do it. The real difficulty is that he is misled. It is no charge to say that a person, ingenuous and candid to a degree unknown elsewhere in this House, should be misled by some extremely clever Orientals, officials and pukka sahibs. I really think that the whole House has missed the real tragedy of this communication from India. The people who have misled the Secretary of State and who have misled the Conservative party as well, are the Princes in India. This bombshell that has come from India is new to the Secretary of State and to everybody in this House. It is a new event. It is because that new event has been sprung upon the House and the Government that we really ought to ask for an adjournment of this Debate. I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman opposite really understands what has happened. The hon. Member for Bombay—

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: I do not in the least resent that remark, except that the right hon. Member has made the same sort of joke over and over again for the last 10 years.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. Member, in any case, has made the same sort of speech. The hon. Member only three weeks ago went to Delhi and heard in the Chamber of Princes their views at that date. The really startling thing in the three weeks, or perhaps two months, has been a change of feeling throughout the whole of India as regards the merits of this Measure. The serious thing is that although the position of the Princes is not changed, although in this Bill they are dealt with exactly as the Joint Committee said—there has not been one variation from the agreements come to between the India. Office and the Princes, yet suddenly their view has changed. I will go further and say that I do not think it is the view of the Princes that has changed, but that it is the view of the whole of India that has affected the Princes.
Let us go back to 1832. At that time there was a gigantic reform Bill in this country, which turned out of the House of Commons more than half the Members. That House was nearly overwhelmingly opposed to that Measure, for they had a
vested interest in retaining the old form of the House of Commons far stronger than Members have to-day in postponing the date of the next General Election.. Undoubtedly, that Reform Bill would have had no chance in that House of Commons, except for the fact that the pressure of public opinion was so great that man after man who was to lose his seat by voting for the Bill voted for it. Exactly the same thing is happening in India, the same thing is affecting the Princes, and, above all, Ministers and legal advisers. They are beginning to see the red light: that it will not do to put themselves in opposition to the wishes of all the people of India.
This change of opinion is not an accident. It is not even inspired by the slightest element of bad faith on the part of the Princes. It is a change that has come about gradually in the last month as this Bill has been better and better understood in India. I would ask the Committee to reflect for one moment upon the time we have spent on this question of the Princes' accession to the scheme; on the effect it has had on the public opinion in this country that the Princes should be against it; and on the attitude and speech of the right hon. Member opposite in face of this crisis, compared with that attitude of this House and Government towards the equally startling and even more emphatic rejection of this Bill by the Assembly the other day. We have seen the Press of India lining up against this Measure: we have seen the Assembly lining up against it, the Hindus, the Liberal Congress, all political opinion has suddenly, startlingly discovered that this Bill will be to the grave damage of India. Their opinion has gradually filtered through to this side, though I will not say it has affected opinion in this House. It may do so as time goes on and we realise more what all classes in India are thinking. Will the Committee observe that when the resolution came from the Assembly, the people who protested—not very good representatives of India, but such as they had—were jeered at. People said that of course they would be against the Measure that demolished them—that they did not matter. Compare that attitude with the almost humble and certainly humiliating attitude that the promoters of this Bill have adopted.
One final thing I would beg the Committee to observe, and that is the pressure which has been brought to bear. Whether that pressure really comes from a desire to strengthen their opposition, or, as I think, far more from an increasing revulsion against this scheme, whatever it comes from, do not let us make concessions to these demands. Do not let us make any concession to the changed opinion of one solitary prince at the expense of the 70,000,000 Indians living in the Indian States. There are in this Bill certain safeguards for the ordinary Indian inhabitants of the Indian States. I am not talking about British India, which is not really concerned with these concessions. The people who are concerned are those, who, as the Member for Preston (Mr. Kirkpatrick) said the other day, are the traders and buy every piece of British goods. In addition, the inhabitants of these States have to put up at present with conditions that are humiliating. They are condemned in this Bill to continue thus for ever, but there are certain safeguards—if these concessions are made—that will be made, not at our expense, but at the expense of the 70,000,000 of people. They are kept in that position of inferiority in their own country, in a condition utterly out of date in this 20th century because of the British connection and support of the rulers of these States. In the past we have rescued the Moplahs in the south of India, rescued from their worst trials those in Indore and Alwar. If the concessions of the Secretary of State now make it impossible for the Government of India and this House to protect the rights, the interests, the humane treatment of these people in these Indian States, then there will be no one who will not be able to imagine that in order to get the Princes of India into this scheme, we are sacrificing not merely the people of India but the good will and understanding of the people of India.

7.15 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I hope that the Committee will allow me to offer a few observations before we proceed to a Division on the Motion which has been proposed. First, may I say a word about the speech which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) made from the opposite benches.
As far as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is concerned, it is not the first occasion upon which be has ploughed a lonely furrow, and I am bound to say that I could not follow the exact relevance of all his observations to the Motion that you should report Progress and ask leave to sit again. As far as the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly was concerned, I think that hon. Members who heard it will have realised that it had very little, or indeed nothing, to do with the particular emergency which is suggested to be the reason for this Motion. The hon. Member indicated the growing dislike of himself and the members of his party to the main proposals of this Bill.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Hear, hear !

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It caused me a little sincere disappointment to hear him make that observation, because, although I think that on the question in general the view of the Labour Opposition is that they would like to see a greater amount of attention given to Indian needs in the framing of the system of government under which they are to live in future, I know that there are many Members of the Labour party opposite who desire to be helpful judging from the contributions which Members of the party make to our debates upon the Bill. But the observation I want to make about the speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly is that, if one can judge' from the illustrations he gave of the dislike which he has for the Bill, it is a dislike which has nothing to do with the difficulties of the Princes at the moment, but a dislike which he has indicated by Motions appearing on the Paper, and which have appeared on the Paper for several days past, as to the terms upon which the Princes shall be required to come into the Federation. I do not propose to discuss that Motion in the name of the hon. Member, for instance, with regard to the International Labour Office, because we shall come to that in due course, but all I want to say is that it has nothing on earth to do with this particular emergency to-day. The Opposition are prepared to enter the Lobby arm-in-arm with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr.
Churchill) though they approach this question from very opposite points of view.

Mr. CHURCHILL: They were arm-in-arm with you last week.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman, I know quite well, keeps strange company sometimes—

Mr. CHURCHILL: So do you.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: And perhaps it will be all the better for the right hon. Gentleman if, at any rate, for the moment they mix with him. I hope that evil communications with him on this occasion will not corrupt their former good manners. As far as the position of my right hon. Friend and his friends of the unofficial Opposition are concerned, it occurs to me—and I dare say many hon. Members have felt the same—there are two courses which could have been taken when these important messages came from India. It was possible for anybody who did not quite like the Bill to make it quite plain that lie demurred to the policy of the Bill, that he thought there were considerable difficulties and would do his best to debate the differences, remove them, or at any rate, to explore them, and nobody could complain of that course. The other method, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping has chosen, is to magnify the difficulties, to disguise, if possible, the note of triumph in the voice with which those difficulties were eloquently offered to the House, but at any rate to make the most of the difficulties and to ask the House to refuse to discuss and deal with them because he declared them to be insurmountable. I do not think that my right hon. Friend could have complained when my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) told him that he really wanted to kill the Bill. That is not attributing motives to the right hon. Gentleman as he and some of his friends seem to think. It is stating the simple fact. Indeed, the matter was put quite plainly in a, perfectly fair and candid speech by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) when he said that he and his friends objected to the Bill, and that it was the duty of an Opposition to expose the defects in the Bill, and so
my right hon. Friend the Member for Epping, who objects to the Bill so much that he wants to defeat it, cannot complain if anybody tells him that he wants to avoid a discussion in the hope of defeating the Bill. He cannot divide himself into water-tight compartments and one day want to promote discussion of the Bill and the next day defeat it.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There surely is a difference in Members opposing a Bill or supporting a Bill from discussing as to the proper method by which that Bill should be conducted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I was saying that my right hon. Friend cannot divide himself into two compartments and one day be helpful to the Bill and try to help the Government to arrive at a proper way of promoting the Bill, and the next moment or the next day do his very best to defeat the Bill. He has one intention—and let the Committee make no mistake about it, and do not let the right hon. Gentleman deceive himself either—he has one plan, one intention at the back of his mind and that is, by all fair and proper means, to defeat this Bill.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Let nobody walk into this trap.
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird.
The right hon. Gentleman told us that he wants to defeat this Bill, and I am bound to say that if anybody wanted to defeat this Bill, much the best method of doing it would be to get this Committee to postpone the consideration of the Bill and to wait until all the difficulties have been magnified tenfold, all the misunderstandings increased and all the possibilities of debate on the Floor of this House abandoned. That, indeed, would be to defeat the Bill, and my right hon. Friend would have added one more to his many triumphs. That is an attitude which, I hope, the Committee will not support.
I suggest to the Committee that they must not be dismayed at these difficulties. Is it not a little surprising that the difficulties have been comparatively as few as they are? There are diehards in both countries, not only in this country but in India. To stop the discussion of this Bill is to surrender to the diehards.
Approaching this question from opposite points of view, they both of them want to stop discussion. The advantage of a discussion is that it will explore difficulties and remove misunderstandings, and the diehards who do not like the Bill from very different points of view want to stop the difficulties being explored.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: What about the difficulties on our side?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I will show in a moment how I justify this statement. In the first place, the diehards are undoubtedly a difficulty in both countries. It is not surprising therefore that the Government and the Princes are embarrassed in India from time to time. Let us also reflect upon the difficulties that are likely to come from the mere drafting of a complicated measure of this sort. My wonder is that the draftsmen have produced the Bill as we have it, but no draftsman however inspired could possibly have been quite certain that he had caught the full spirit of an agreement between two different interested parties. No Secretary of State—and the whole House will be glad to have heard the statements made that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has never sought to deceive and never intended to deceive or mislead the House; let hon. Members put that unworthy charge on one side—no Secretary of State, however candid and familiar with all the byways of this. controversy, could possibly be certain that this Bill, as offered to the Committee, was exactly what he intended or what the Princes intended or what the common understanding of both parties intended.
There would be many such points likely to 'arise, and when I read this telegram or series or telegrams from India my wonder was that, instead of the present points of difference, there were not a far larger number of misunderstandings and difficulties. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft) made use of a word which seemed to him to be as precious as the word "Mesopotamia." He spoke of "fundamental" differences. Fundamental—he repeated it over and over again—differences are always fundamental until they are cleared up. As long as parties are standing at arm's length differences are bound to cause trouble.
The real way to remove differences is for people to discuss them with the people who went to get the Bill through. That is the best way to remove differences.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: It depends what they are.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend wants to know what they are. One of the most remarkable features of the debate has been the almost total absence of any reference by right hon. and hon. Members who want this Bill to be abandoned to the particular differences. My Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) did deal with one. He dealt with the Instrument of Accession, and I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth did also. Undoubtedly, the Instrument of Accession is one of the most important parts of the Bill. It is a vital question to which we have to come in a few minutes. If the Instrument of Accession is not in the form in which it is intended to be by the agreement already made by the Princes and the Secretary of State on behalf of the Government, is not the Floor of this House the best place to discuss these differences and see whether we cannot arrive at a common understanding 7 Let us expose the intention of the Government, let us examine the drafting of Clause 6, let us see exactly what it is the Princes want safeguarded and what we all agree ought to be safeguarded. My hon. Friends who insist on open debate in this House apparently would like to have some of these negotiations which they sometimes criticise proceed with the Princes. Of course, they will proceed, but at the same time an open discussion in this Committee of these differences, and the statement of what my right hon. Friend intends, will help as nothing else will help to clear the minds both of the Princes and the Members of the Committee 'at the present time.

Mr. BRACKEN: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House what are the differences, because we do not know? The Princes alone know.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend, if he will allow me to say so, could hardly have listened with attention to the Secretary of State, because he explained the differences in a very clear way which, I think, the whole Com
mittee appreciated. It is said that my right hon. Friend has never faced the difficulties inherent in federation. What is the remedy for that? To face them in Committee. What is the use of saying that he has not faced the difficulties of federation and then be unwilling to have a debate in which they can be faced? Common sense demands that we shall face the difficulties of federation, if we have not faced them. That is what this House exists for.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Without knowing the difficulties of federation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Does my right hon. Friend not know the difficulties of federation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: What we object to is having to discuss these matters in the absence of complete knowledge as to the plans of the Government.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend complains that they do not really know the plans of the Government. We are dealing with the Clauses on federation. We are in the middle of Clause 5 and we are going to proceed to Clause 6, and the right hon. Gentleman complains that he does not know the plan of the Government. Will he not let the Government tell him? He cannot have it both ways. Even his adroitness and eloquence cannot avoid that dilemma. If he does not know what the Government's plan is, then instead of speaking he should sit still and listen. The noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) said: "Let us postpone further debate until the situation is cleared up." I make the reply: "Let us clear it up." Where better could we clear it up than on the Floor of the House of Commons, I think the whole Committee saw through the somewhat ingenuous solicitude of my Noble Friend for the social programme of the Government. I know that my Noble Friend is deeply interested in social reform, but I have never heard him plead for it with so much earnestness. But it is not his desire that social reform should be at the front but that the India Bill should be at the back.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth told us what is no doubt true that the Indian Princes had not before them the full advice of their
legal advisers when they deliberated upon this matter a few days ago. I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend is aware of the date when that advice was sent. He seems to have some information as to when the advice of the legal advisers was sent to the Princes and when it will be received. Does it not occur to him that if the Princes had not the advantage of the advice of their legal advisers, whom they trust in this country, when they passed their resolution, it may be that when they get that advice some of the difficulties will be cleared up. If that advice had not been received a few days ago, it probably has been received by now. I am speaking with a little knowledge, and I say deliberately that I have no doubt whatever that these matters will be regarded by the Princes' legal advisers as questions of legal clarity, and that no one would be more dismayed than the Princes and their advisers if they heard, after they had had that advice, that we were not going on with the discussion of these important questions.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth stated an important fact when he said that the Princes when they arrived at their decision had not had the full legal advice which they expected to get. I have no doubt that the Princes, sincerely interested as they are in coming into the scheme of federation—my hon. Friend opposite spoke the truth on that point, not for the first time, but people need to hear it over and over again before they realise it—when they are fully fortified by the facts and by discussions in this Committee, which will be reported in India before many hours, and by that understanding which is always reached by people who want to arrive at an understanding, will feel, as we feel, that we shall clear up these difficulties and misunderstandings, important and critical though they may be.
Let me refer only to one other matter, the question of treaties. Hon. Members heard my right hon. Friend explain how impossible it is to put the question of the treaties, the sanctity of the treaties in the Instrument of Accession, unless you are going to have an interpretation of the treaties exposed to the hazard of legal discussion in the Federal Court. Nobody more than the Princes would be unwilling to see that course followed.
But my right hon. Friend did not stop there. He went on to declare in the most emphatic way that it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to declare the sanctity of the treaties, when this Bill is through, and the adherence of His Majesty's Government to all the pledges, however solemn, that they and their predecessors have given to the rulers of the States. If the Princes have been a little anxious about their treaties, they will not fail to think that that statement has helped to relieve their difficulties and anxieties. That is an illustration of what we can do in these debates.
Let us be on our guard against people who want to defeat this Bill. Of course, they are quite entitled to do it. Let us listen to them with respect. The right hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) said they are perfectly entitled to be in opposition, and nobody complains of their opposition, but let us always understand what the opposition want, and do not let us overrate their arguments. Do not let us give them an importance which they do not merit.

Mr. GRITTEN: You have not answered one of them yet. It is all forensic argument.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My right hon. Friend the Member for Epping and his friends are free to oppose, and we are free to proceed with our Bill. We must not attach more importance to their arguments than we think they deserve. I am accustomed and lion. Members are accustomed in the ordinary affairs of life when we hear somebody criticising to ask, if I may use a colloquialism, what is the game? We know the game.

Mr. CHURCHILL: What do you mean by that? What does the right hon. and learned Member mean by using that expression? [HON. MEMBERS: "Waver-tree!"] Cannot hon. Members let him answer for himself? What does he mean by the word "game" He used the term in an invidious sense, What does he mean by it?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not know why my right hon. Friend should always be so indignant when anybody says anything which is a little critical of himself. We have listened to his criticisms, and I think the whole of the Committee understood what I meant. I
absolutely decline, even in face of my right hon. Friend's indignation, to be compelled to make anything more than a perfectly fair charge against him. As I have said before, if he wants to play the game, let him do it. His intention is to defeat the Bill. That is his game.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The right hon. and learned Member is perfectly entitled to say that, but a more unworthy description of the action taken by hon. Members in opposing a Bill to which they have conscientious objection never fell from the lips of a law officer.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: All I can say is that, if a more unworthy statement never fell from the lips of a law officer, I only hope that a more unworthy statement will never fall from my lips. I have detained the Committee long enough with my observations. I think my right hon. Friend will realise that if we are to have his attacks and if we have to endure his cuts and thrusts, he must not complain if sometimes someone who wields a very small sword crosses weapons with his flashing blade. In conclusion, I would say that I join with the hon. Member for Caerphilly in one observation when he said that nobody could complain of my right hon. Friend for making this Motion. I think it has served to clear the air here. I think the air in India will probably be cleared by this Debate, and now that we have had this discussion, let me, in immortal words, say, "Let us pass on."

7.47 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I do not intend to keep the Committee many minutes, but the Attorney-General seemed to me to misunderstand the reason why we are voting for the Motion. I do not know, although I listened to the right hon. Gentleman, what new safeguards, what more money is necessary—I do not mean in the way of bribery or anything of that kind—the Princes may require. I do not know what the concessions are going to cost in giving more power to the Princes in relation to federation. I do not know, and I do not think that anyone else in the House knows, and I do not think that it is a good thing to go on building up a federal structure in this Bill until we know exactly what arrangements have to he made with the Princes. There has been a great discussion in the Press and in this House as to
what the Princes have or have not agreed to, but we know now that they have put on record certain objections, and the Secretary of State this afternoon has made a statement in connection with them, but until there has been further negotiations and another statement comes from the Princes we shall not know where they stand. For that reason alone, I shall vote for the Motion, and so will my hon. Friends.
But there is another and a much more important reason why I shall vote for the Motion. The time of this House and the propaganda of the Government and of the Opposition within the Government's own camp is devoted exclusively to the position which the Princes are going to occupy in the Federation. We all desire that the Princes should come in on fair and equitable terms, but the masses of the people who are to live under this constitution, reside in British India, and our complaint is that they have never been consulted. The reason that we want the Bill to be rejected is because we know that those people have far stronger objections to the proposals of the Government than have the Princes, but those people are not listened to at all.
A statement was signed by all those representatives of British India who came to be consulted by the Joint Select Committee, but almost every proposition put forward by the Indians has been rejected. There is not one organisation of any worth in British India which has accepted or said one word in support of these proposals. But the Government take not the slightest notice. I will not say that they treat them with contempt, but they treat them as though they were of no consequence. We resent that. We think that they have an equal right with the Princes

to be considered. I know it has been said in a jeering sort of way that they disagree among themselves. Yes, but, you do not give them the chance, which you have given to the Princes, to formulate their demands and requests. You just brush them on one side, and say, as the Secretary of State said to-day in relation to the Princes, that it is for us in this House to lay down the terms and conditions. We dissent from that altogether.

We do not want there to be any misunderstanding about our position. If there is going to be this kind of federation, we would rather have no federation at all. This kind of federation is the worst that could have been proposed. I do not think that the Attorney-General did my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) justice in his reply to him. For these reasons, I have risen to tell the Committee and everybody concerned that if we had out way and had the power we should throw out the Bill and consult British India in the same manner as the Government are consulting the Princes. We cannot understand the logic of the Government in taking so much trouble about the Princes, whom we want to see in a, federation, and at the same time refuse to consider and consult the representatives of British India. However difficult it may be to arrive at a conclusion, we think that any constitution imposed upon the people of India is bound to fail, and that to go on with the Bill at this time, when British India is against it and without knowing exactly the attitude of the Princes, is a sheer waste of public time.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 89; Noes, 283.

Division No. 62.]
AYES.
[7.48 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lleut.-Colonel
Cleary, J. J.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Alexander, Sir William
Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Groves, Thomas E.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Grundy, Thomas W.


Banfield, John William
Daggar, George
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydyll)


Batey, Joseph
Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Hepworth, Joseph


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hicks, Ernest George


Bracken, Brendan
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Bralthwalte, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E.R.)
Dawson, Sir Phllip
John, William


Broadbent, Colonel John
Dixey, Arthur C. N.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger


Burton, Colonel Henry Walter
Edwards, Charles
Kimball, Lawrence


Cape, Thomas
Everard, W. Lindsay
Knox, Sir Alfred


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Lawson, John James
Paling, Wilfred
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Leonard, William
Parkinson, John Allen
Tinker, John Joseph


Levy, Thomas
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Lunn, William
Reld, David D. (County Down)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Remer, John R.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah


McEntce, Valentine L,
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Wells, Sidney Richard


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Maitland, Adam
Scone, Lord
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Maxton, James.
Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Wilmot, John


Milner, Major James
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
wise, Alfred R.


Nall, Sir Joseph
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, North)



Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Taylor. Vice-Admiral E.A. (P'dd'gt'n,S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—


Nunn, William
Templeton, William P.
Mr. Donner and Mr. Emmott,


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thorne, William James



NOES.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds,W.)
Denville, Alfred
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Despencer-Roberteon, Major J. A. F.
Jennings, Roland


Albery, Irving James
Dickle, John P.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp't, W.)
Doran, Edward
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Drewe, Cedric
Ker, J. Campbell


Asks, Sir Robert William
Duckworth, George A. V.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Assheton, Ralph
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Kirkpatrick, William M.


Astor, Viscountees (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duggan, Hubert John
Knight, Holford


Ba[...]e, Sir Adrian W. M.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Dunglass, Lord
Law Sir Alfred


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Eales, John Frederick
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Eastwood, John Francis
Leckle, J. A.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Lees-Jones. John


Barton, Capt. Basil Kalsey
Emrys-Evane, P, V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lewis, Oswald


Benn, sir Arthur Shirley
Essenhigh, Reginald Clara
Liddall, Walter S.


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Bernays, Robert
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunilffe-


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Liewellin, Major John J.


Bossom, A. C.
Fielden, Edward Brockiehurst
Loder, Captain J. de Vere


Boulton, W. W.
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Loftus, Pierce C.


Bower, Commander Robert Tatton
Fox, Sir Gilford
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Fraser, Captain Sir Ian
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Boyce, H. Leslie
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Mebane, William


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)


Brass, Captain Sir William
George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Gillett, Sir George Master man
McCorquodale, M. S.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Glossop, C. W. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Goff, Sir Park
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Buchan, John
Gower, Sir Robert
McEwan, Captain J. H. F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
McKle, John Hamilton


Burghley, Lord
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Magnay, Thomas


Butler, Richard Austen
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Grigg, Sir Edward
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Grimston, R. V,
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gunston, Captain D. W.
May hew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Cassels, James Dale
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Meller, Sir Richard James


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cayzer, Maj, Sir H. R.(Prtsmth., S.)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Milne, Charles


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hammersley, Samuel S.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Harmon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A. (Birm., W)
Harris, Sir Percy
Mitcheson, G. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyre


Clarry, Reginald George
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morgan, Robert H.


Colfox, Major William Philip
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Colman, N. C. D.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'ties)


Conant, R. J. E.
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Cheimsford)
Morrison, William Shepherd


Cook, Thomas A.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Mulrhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J.


Cooke, Douglas
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Munro, Patrick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Holdsworth, Herbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Howard, Tom Forrest
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Crossley, A. C.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Barnard
Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Ormaby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Orr Ewing, I. L.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Owen, Major Goronwy


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Palmer, Francis Noel


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset. Yeovil)
Iveagh, Countess of
Patrick, Colin M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Peake, Osbert




Pearson, William G.
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Peat, Charles U.
Salt, Edward W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F.


Percy, Lord Eustace
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Summersby, Charles H.


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Sutcliffe, Harold


Petherick, M.
Samuel, M. R. A. (W'ds'wth, Putney).
Tate, Mavis Constance


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Savery, Samuel Servington
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Pownall. Sir Assheton
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Pybus, Sir John
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Radford, E. A.
Shute, Colonel Sir John
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Train, John


Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Smith, Sir J. Walker (Barrow-in-F.)
Tree, Ronald


Ramsay. T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smithers, Sir Waldron
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Ramsbotham, Herwald
Somervell, Sir Donald
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Soper, Richard
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Rea, Walter Russell
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
White, Henry Graham


Rickards, George William
Spens, William Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Robinson, John Roland
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'morland)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Rosbntham, Sir Thomas
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Womersley, Sir Walter


Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Stevenson, James
Wood. Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Worthington, Dr. John V.


Runelman, Rt. Hon. Walter
Stones, James
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Stourton, Hon. John J.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Russell, Hamer Field (Shet'ld, B'tside)
Strauss, Edward A.



Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Strickland, Captain W. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Sir George Penny and Mr. Blindell.

CLAUSE 5.—(Proclamation of Federation of India.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.59 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I hope the Committee will allow me a personal word before I come to deal with Clause 5. I do not desire the Committee to think that I take second place to any one in my admiration of the work done by the Secretary of State for India in regard to this matter. I felt somewhat unhappy when I heard the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) pay a tribute to the Secretary of State, implying thereby that he and his friends alone appreciate the strenuous and tenacious work which the right hon. Gentleman has put in. I too have been associated with the Secretary of State for many months, and I am sincerely in hearty agreement with those who pay a tribute to his work. None the less, we differ fundamentally on principles on this question.
I propose to say one or two words in relation to the question of federation. I have already addressed the Committee upon the matter on the Motion that the Chairman do report Progress, when I studiously avoided speaking upon the particular proposal of federation itself. I think I made it clear to the Committee earlier that we on this side are quite convinced that a form of federation is the more desirable thing to achieve if you can achieve it. It is obvious that it is desirable to get, in the
course of time and as speedily as possible, a united India. It has been said over and over again in this Committee that India as yet is not a nation, that it is a congeries of all kinds of people who speak different languages and have different religions. So it is desirable that this great sub-Continent should sooner or later, and sooner rather than later, be able to speak with a united voice. The only way to secure that is by some method of federation.
We have kept steadily before our minds, therefore, the desirability of achieving as far as possible a form of federation. I do not think that I shall be controverted if I say that even those Conservatives who are so consistently opposing this idea are not so very remote after all from the concept of a federation, for they themselves moved last week in the direction of establishing a Council of Greater India, on the line of the recommendations of the Simon Commission. If hon. Members will look at that concept, which was advanced in some detail, they will find there the terms of a federation. I know that the Federation was not drafted precisely on the terms of this one, nor on the terms which we desire, but there is a desire, even in their Motion, for a federation. So in point of fact I do not think there is a fundamental difference between any of us in this Committee regarding the desirability of a central organisation which can focus the activity of the States and of the Provinces in one common centre.
Our difference with the Government on this matter arises from the nature of the Federation which is here established. My friends and I, who acknowledge that we strive to retain the democratic outlook not only in our own country but in relation to our Dominions overseas, feel that it is incumbent upon us to strive as far as possible to retain the democratic elements in this central Assembly. No one can deny that there are two quite incongruous elements in this Federtion. There is the element of nomination from the States and the element of election from British India, and it is extremely hard to reconcile them in practice. I do not see how these two hitherto irreconcilable elements, autocracy on the one Bile and democracy on the other side, are going to work co-terminously or co-existently at the centre. It might be worked, and I do not say that it is beyond possibility, but my great objection is this: If you feel that you must bring in this nominated element from the States, very good. It is bringing an incongruous element into the structure of the centre. But, in order to do it, do not make the price of federation a price that it is impossible to pay. I suggest that the price that is being paid in order to establish this Federation is a price which British India ought not to he called upon to pay.
That is my simple proposition. What is the price in fact? I challenge contradiction upon the point that, once this Federation is established, British India has a yoke thrust upon it that it cannot shake off. If you are going to retain federation you can do it only with the acquiescence of the Princes. The moment you sacrifice the acquiescence of the Princes the Federation falls to pieces. Under Schedule 2 of the Bill the Princes' acquiescence can be immediately removed if the Princes are able to argue that you have so altered constitutional development in British India as to prejudice thereby the Instruments of Accession. To enable the Princes to hold a. pistol of that sort at the head of British India is to give them too great a power. I repeat that if you can work the Princes in with British India. in any common endeavour to work for the whole of India, very well and good. I am not enthusiastic nor optimistic about it. But if you can, please do not do it at the expense of weighting down, not for a period, not temporarily, but so far as
this Bill is concerned for all time—weighting down British India to such a degree that it cannot march forward a. single step. That is a. terrible price to pay. It is an impossible price.
No one can be surprised if we on this side take the strongest objection to any proposal to prevent utterly—that is not an exaggerated word—if the Princes so desire, any single step forward in constitutional progress. Not only that, but let us look at how the thing works in practice. I said earlier this afternoon that we did not know yet on what terms the Princes will join the Federation. There is no common factor to which all Princes must agree. One Prince presumably may accept acquiescence in respect of 10 subjects and another in respect of a different number. We on our side take the strongest possible objection to the idea of federation unless and until we know precisely on what terms this Federation is to be set up. I would like to show that we are entitled to watch the operation of this Clause, the setting up of this Federation, with a considerable amount of suspicion. I cite in support of my case not a statement made by a, Labour man, nor indeed by a representative of British India,. Hon. Members will have had sent to them copies of a magazine called "The Twentieth Century." I believe it is an Indian publication. In the January issue there is an article entitled "States and Federation," by Colonel Sir Kailas Haksar, who in a little monograph on the top is declared to be "the brain behind the Princes in India." If this is the brain we understand the nature of the thoughts. This is what the article says:
It seems an implicit irony of the situation that certain provisions of the Joint Parliamentary Committee's report which have been most strongly attacked by British-Indian politicians and almost treated as a betrayal of trust reposed in the elder statesman of the United Kingdom, actually provide more effective safeguards of the rights and interests of the States than any provisions for the specific incorporation of which with the coming Act their imaginative caution or intuitive prudence had led them to ask.
In other words, we are told by this representative spokesman that there is more presented to the Princes as the price of their acquiescence in this Federation than the most cautious or the most circumspect amongst them had ever expected to receive.
Let me carry this argument a little further. Let us see how this will work in practice. You have your federal centre, and there is a number of nominees of the Princes in the lower House, and a certain number of nominees of the Princes in the upper House, a very considerable body of them, a fairly high proportion of the total membership of either House. What sort of chance has any progressive legislation got of being passed even through such Houses when there is a solid block of purely nominated people in both Houses? Let me not be unfair, however. There are undoubtedly Princes whose States in many respects are in advance, to our shame, of British India itself. There are, for instance, States that have a better system of education than some parts of British India. There are States that have better health services than some parts of British India. So I want to make it clear that there are some splendid exceptions; but exceptions they are, and the exceptions prove the rule.
There is this body of nominees of the Princes who, on the whole, shall we say, are quite reactionary in their outlook. What possible chance is there for any kind of progressive legislation to be carried through a Parliament of that sort? None whatever. So hon. Members must not be surprised if we look with the gravest possible suspicion upon these proposals. That cannot possibly give us satisfaction. We flatter ourselves, rightly or wrongly, that we are for the time being the custodians of the interests of the great mass of working-class people in India. They have no spokesman of their own here. There is no one here who can directly express ideas on their behalf. If there is anything at all in having a Labour party, surely the first function of such a party is to speak for those who are least able to speak for themselves, and we should be failing in our duty if we did not direct attention to the fact that the instrument which this Committee is in the act of constructing is one which will make progress almost impossible in British India in the future. Hon. Members and right hon. Gentlemen opposite need not be unduly alarmed about the Princes. The Princes are amply safeguarded.

Mr. DONNER: Surely we are the custodians of the welfare and safety of
the masses in India, regardless of class, whether they are working-class people or Princes.

Mr. JONES: I am very glad to hear that the hon. Member and his friends are concerned about the working classes. They have given no indication of it so far in this discussion to-day.

Mr. DONNER: We have always been.

Mr. JONES: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I point out that during practically the whole of the discussions of last week and certainly during the whole of to-day, he and his friends have not once debated the case of the working classes in British India. Their whole argument has been "What about the Princes?"

Mr. DONNER: I made a speech myself last week in which I put forward the case for the masses of the people.

Mr. JONES: Again we have the exception which proves the rule. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, that is quite true. The whole burden of the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite has been the Princes, the Princes, the Princes, and how the interests of the Princes are being affected, adversely or otherwise. I do not propose to carry that argument any further because I know that others wish to speak. I do not however, want to be misunderstood. I repeat that the configuration of India justifies our anticipating, even if we cannot immediately realise it, a united India. If the States of the Princes were all contiguous to each other it might be better at first to attempt some sort of federated BritishIndia—though there are several arguments against even that proposal. For example, you might create thereby some sort of mutual understanding or federation of the States, and perhaps that might not be desirable either. But the situation is not like that. These States are dotted here and there all over India and problems of customs and inter-communication make it imperative that we should consider some sort of federation. I am very sorry to have to say that it is impossible for us to give the Government our accord in this matter. I say, honestly and candidly, that I would be glad if I could find it possible to cooperate with the Government in something which would give comfort and encouragement to the Indian people. But
there is no comfort and no encouragement to be expected from the instrument which we are now forging. For that reason, my hon. Friends and I will have to vote against the Clause.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS: To-day the bulk of the time has been occupied by those whom I might call the Brahmins in this Committee, that is to say, front benchers, privy councillors and former members of the Joint Select Committee. I rise as a member of the depressed classes to make such contribution as I can to the debate, and I would point out that the depressed classes up to now have only occupied about one-third of the time in these discussions.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The hon. Member is among the untouchables on the Government side.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I suppose the untouchables are the Parliamentary private secretaries who are not allowed to speak at all. I think the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. M. Jones) was unfair when he said that the debate had been confined to the Princes and that no concern had been shown about the masses of the Indian people. When we are engaged in discussing Clauses, the whole structure of which, from the Government's point of view, depends on whether or not the Princes come in, then obviously for the time being we must discuss the Princes. If we were to discuss the things which the hon. Member wants us to discuss, we should be out of order for most of the time, and I have yet to learn that it is a good thing to be out of order in debate, in order to emphasise one's desire to support and help those who are not in a position to look after themselves.
Some of us have described this Bill as the Indian Moneylenders Enfranchisement Bill, because we believe that it is likely to assist those who are already in an established position, and take away from the masses the protection which they at present enjoy, owing to the fact that India is, in a degree, a benevolent autocracy at this moment. I disliked this conception of responsible federation ever since it was first put forward as a practical proposition in the early summer of 1931. I never liked the idea. I never thought that the conditions
existed in India and I do not believe now that they exist, which would enable such a system to work. My belief is that if we establish it in due course, it will break down badly, and therefore I do not want it to be established in the first instance.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) that the very structure of the electorate—because the Princes are part of the electorate—is an impossible one. I believe that a communal electorate in itself makes the whole conception of federation almost impossible and causes one to doubt very much whether responsible representative institutions can function, even in the Provinces. We have now reached a most amazing stage in these proceedings. We are discussing the crucial Clause in the first part of the Bill and, as far as we can find, there is not in India to-day any organised body of opinion which supports the Bill. There may be organised bodies who will go into the new Constitution if it becomes law, not because they want to do so but because they have no option. It is a singular failure of statesmanship that a Bill has been produced for which no one expresses any affection but which meets with condemnation from every quarter.
I realise that in this Clause we are not only discussing the question of whether there is to be federation or not, but also the question of whether it is not the case 'that federation can only exist if the Princes come into it. Therefore, we come back to the Princes, not of our own choice but because the Clause forces us to do so. In 1927 the Statutory Commission was appointed because the Act of Parliament required it to be appointed, though it need not have been appointed quite so soon. The pledge in the Act of /919 is contained in the Preamble to that Act which together with the operative Clause made it necessary to appoint within a certain number of years—ten I think—the Statutory Commission. The only clear promise, the only binding promise was contained in the Preamble to that Act. The Declaration made at Delhi in 1921 and the reference to India taking its place among the Dominions, the Declaration of the King-Emperor made, I think, through the lips of the Duke of Connaught, really had no reference to Dominion status as
we now understand it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Certainly. Dominion status was a conception which did not exist until 1926.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: The phrase was used frequently before then.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But it had no meaning in the modern sense until 1926. I happen to know that exceedingly well, because for over two months in 1928 I was travelling through Canada with a delegation of over 50 Members of various Parliaments of the Empire including four members of the Indian Legislature, four members of the Irish Free State Legislature and eight members of the Parliament of the Union of South Africa as well as representatives of other Parliaments, and our main topic of conversation, when we got on to Imperial matters, IA as Dominion status as defined by the Imperial Conference of 1926. No one who lived with Dominion status, as I did—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have been trying to see to what extent the hon. Member's argument affects the question of federation or otherwise.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have wandered a little, and it is very difficult, in respect of a Clause of the significance of Clause 5, to keep within the strict and narrow rules of order. I am not one of those who normally endeavour to get outside the rules of order, and it is because of the relationship of the idea of federation to Dominion status that I was led a little far away. All the declarations that were made, the pledges of 1919 and 1921 and the 1929 declaration, were made without reference to the idea of the Princes coming in. Every promise that has been made, whether a promise of a unilateral nature or something going beyond that; has been a promise made on the assumption that you were going to develop Indian self-governing institutions without the Princes. That is an amazing situation. This idea of the Princes coming in, in the sense in which we now understand it, did not exist until the early summer of 1931.

Mr. MOLSON: It was stated very clearly in the report of Mr. Montagu and Lord Chelmsford.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The idea of the Princes coming in to a responsible centre was never mooted as a, serious factor in the situation until the early summer of 1931, and every promise that was made to the inhabitants of British India was made irrespective of what part the Princes might play. Now we are told that you cannot have this advance unless the Princes come in. How do the Government propose to redeem the promises, which they say are binding morally, if the Princes do not come in? There is no plan. It is an amazing situation that the Bill is not a Bill in fulfilment of those promises, but a Bill based on an entirely new position, and if, for some perfectly good reason of self-interest, for example, which may guide the Princes they do not come in, we are now to be told that we have to break every promise we have made. It shows the complete bankruptcy of statesmanship. It shows that they have drifted on until the Government are now in a totally impossible position in respect of this matter, because they have no plan to deal with the situation which would arise if the Princes did not come in. What then happens to all those promises?
Here we have this Committee discussing the matter, potentially 615 of us, some 80 who do not like it—I am thinking of the group with which I am associated, and at least we have devoted a good deal of time to trying to understand it—the Members of the Government and those associated with them actively, probably some 40, who have devoted a good deal of time to it and have some understanding of it, the rest knowing nothing about it and frankly saying so, voting blind because, as they say, "I have never been to India, and I do not understand it." As if a particular knowledge of India is of very much importance when you are constructing a constitution. The essential information is all to be found in the first volume of the Statutory Commission. We are constructing a constitution to carry out promises, and we have now created such a situation that if certain other people, who were not in contemplation when the promises were made, will not play their part, the promises have got to be broken. That seems to me to be a situation so amazing that I wonder how it is going to be adjusted.
We are told that if, on the other hand, you do not have federation, you cannot have the development of self-governing institutions in the Provinces, because someone suddenly discovered, only three months 'ago, that the development of self-governing institutions in the Provinces was impossible without federation. Who made that bright discovery, I do not know. It has not the slightest constitutional significance, and it is not a valid argument, though it appears to have converted several right hon. Members, but why, I do not know. Take the comparable cases that we have in the British Empire. The Dominion of Canada was built up out of a number of self-governing Provinces. They existed—self-government was a success—for many years before, in the year 1867, in a room adjoining the office where I work which was the old Westminster Palace Hotel, the delegates of the Provinces met. and drew up the constitution of the Dominion of Canada, subsequently incorporated in the British North America Act; yet self-governing institutions had worked in Canada, homogeneous in population, without any federal centre at all.
Take Australia. I think Victoria, was the earliest State to get full responsible government, though I am speaking from memory, somewhere about 1840.

Sir CHARLES OMAN: It was New South Wales.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I thank my hon. Friend. They go back nearly 100 years. Self-governing institutions existed in the six States of Australia for varying periods, all of them substantial until, in the year 1900, we passed the Act which created the Commonwealth of Australia. There was no federal centre. The only federal centre was the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as he was then, in Downing Street.

Captain CAZALET: Some of the difficulties which Australia is facing to-day, particularly with the railways, are due to the fact that there was not a federation prior to 1901.

Mr. WILLIAMS: We are being told that it cannot work. The fact that in Australia they have different gauges did not arise out of the fact that there was no federation, but because, when they started those railways, they never con
templated that they would so develop that it would be necessary to go beyond the boundaries of their own States. It was because they failed to visualise the ultimate links that would develop, just as the Great Western Railway was built on a gauge wider than the rest of the railways in this country.
Now let us take South Africa. The history of South Africa is rather different, because we had two more or less independent republics. I say "more or less" because there was the famous word "suzerainty" which came into the great constitutional struggle. We had Cape Colony and the Colony of Natal. After the war Cape Colony and Natal continued as self-governing bodies, the Transvaal got its constitution, and the Orange River Colony also got self-governing institutions. Nobody suggested that they could not function—they functioned quite successfully as self-governing institutions—but it was seen that there were great merits in having a federal Government, and ultimately they built up a federal Government in South Africa,. almost unitary, because in the Union of South Africa the federal power is relatively much stronger than it is in Australia and Canada. But no one has suggested that self-government in the Transvaal was impossible without a Union of South Africa. Therefore, this analogy has not the slightest validity from the point of view of past constitutional experience and experiment.
Then, at this moment, in East Africa there are Kenya Colony, the Uganda Protectorate, Tanganyika Territory, and Zanzibar, all of different stages of constitutional development, all of them having certain common interests and quite a good case, as a matter of fact, for federation, though there are very grave difficulties in the way arising out of treaty obligations; but no one suggests that it is necessary to set up a federation in order that in those Colonies there may be gradually developed a constitutional form of government, a gradual building-up of some form of self-governing institutions, representative in the first place and responsible later on, we hope. Who is the federal centre there? My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
You can go to West Africa, where you have a group of colonies—Gambia,
Sierra Leone, the Gold Coast, British Togoland, British Cameroons, Nigeria—six separate units of government without any federal centre. It will probably take a long time to develop self-governing institutions, but no one suggests that these colonies cannot exist without a federal centre. In the West Indies the problem of distance is a serious one for the colonies are a long way from one another, but from time to time there have been suggestions of a federation of the West Indian colonies, because there is a community of economic interests and from the point of view of defence also. No one suggests, however, that the very considerable development in self-governing institutions which has taken place in the various colonies in the West Indian islands cannot continue because there is no federal centre. Therefore, those who plead, as they have pleaded, that they are supporting a federal centre because there cannot be provincial development without it are basing themselves on arguments which seem to me thoroughly unsound. I have never liked the idea of federal responsibility until we have tried these people out and they have proved up to the hilt their capability. Until that is decided I shall continue to oppose the conception of a federal centre.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. DAVID MASON: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said we ought to proceed first by provincial government and then come to federation. Notwithstanding what he said, I think we can assume that the great majority of people are in favour of the federal idea. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) on the Opposition benches paid a handsome tribute to the Secretary of State and said he was an enthusiastic believer in the federal idea. We have spent three and a-half hours discussing the resolution of the Princes, who expressed their distaste of the Bill in its present state, and yet, if the arguments of the hon. Gentleman were carried out we would have to cut down the powers of the Princes still further, and how could be reconcile that with his support of the idea of federation? We were asked by responsible Members to report Progress because of the attitude of the Princes, and yet, if the hon. Gentleman's submissions were carried out, it would still further cut down the
power of the Princes. What chance would there be then for this Bill? The hon. Gentleman disclaims being a wrecker, but he must recognise that, in view of the resolution of the Princes, any movement on the part of the House of Commons must be rather towards the Princes than away from them. I yield to no one in my respect for the working-class and for the democratic idea, and in my admiration for India, but I think the Indian is not quite in the same position as the working man in this country.
We can apply democratic principles to the people of this country, which is a country of education, whose working-classes have worked up to a respectable and deservedly respected position in the electorate. The hon. Member, however, says that because he stands for the working-classes here he would take out from this Clause the right to appoint 52 members of the Council of State, for, he says, that right would remove any possibility of democracy ever making its voice heard in India. If his argument were carried out, and if he were to persuade the House to agree to it, he must know that it would wreck the Bill. The hon. Member expressed an admiration for the idea of federation. The task of the Government has been to create a federation which will bring in the Princes and the working-classes of India. It is the highest statesmanship for the Government to try and bring in the Princes. I agree it is difficult to reconcile the Princes who have been accustomed to great authority in India, but we cannot dismiss them and apply all the principles for which we enthusiastically stand in this country when we are dealing with India. We must have regard to the vast mass of illiteracy in India on the one side and to the mass of conservatism in this country on the other. I appreciate conservatism, although I do not agree with it. I recognise it as a fact, and this Measure has to be formed in such a way that it will satisfy the Princes and large sections of Conservative opinion in this country. It has been able to do that, and as an act of statesmanship this Measure is a masterpiece.
The task of the Government was to bring in a Bill to grant self-government for India which would reconcile the Conservative element and the Princes, and yet do justice to the ryot and the peasant in India, and carry with it a vast amount
of Liberal opinion in this country, which it does. I have no doubt that, in their hearts, many Members in the Opposition, although they might wish for a more democratic Measure, will concede as Parliamentary men, as statesmen who have enjoyed high office, that there must be a Clause such as Clause 5 laying down the great principles for which the hon. Gentleman has given his support. We must have a Measure which will satisfy the Princes and recognise the fact that we are not dealing with the same sort of democracy in India as the democracy in this country, and formulate a Measure which will work. We must nominate, otherwise how will the Measure work? I yield to no one in my respect for democracy, but I apply an ordinary Parliamentary mind and common sense to this Measure. I compliment and congratulate the Government on standing firm this evening, and I rejoice in the fact that the High Court of Parliament did not for a moment give way. Now we are discussing the Bill, where are those who have complained for hours of the Government? Why do they not come in and listen to the arguments one one side and another so that we may together formulate a Measure which will do something to advance self-government in India?

8.45 p.m.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I have not heard an argument in favour of federation. I am very anxious to have arguments in favour of federation. I understood, when I postponed Debate on this question on an earlier Amendment, that we might discuss federation to-night from the point of view of a federation of British India as against a federation including all the Indian States. I am against federation of every sort, but I do riot believe that it is impossible to federate British India alone. The Simon Commission did not regard it as impossible that British India should be a federation itself and now the Indians themselves are demanding a British-India Federation and not a federal federation; and the only argument against it which I have heard is from my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench that the boundaries make it impossible to have a, federation of British India alone. I do not think that is so. The Customs issue does not come in. Those who have travelled in India know that one goes through India without knowing whether one is in
an Indian State or British India. The Customs issue is only a difficulty in the area where one has a native ruler developing his own port, That difficulty has been present in the Government of India for very long, but I believe that it has been satisfactorily settled, so that the question of the practical impossibility of federating British India does not really arise. The Indian States could remain outside the federation, as they are to-day outside the Government of British India.
What I want to set before the Committee and to get an answer from the Government about are the chief objections to federation. There are two chief objections, and either of them appears to me to be fatal to it. I have opposed the idea of federation ever since it was first proposed at the first Round Table Conference, and I am glad to see that now the same point of view is largely taken in British India itself. First and foremost the objection is that to make it a federation of all India would mean that the Measure we are passing would not be a step in the direction of self-government but the final coping stone of all that we can do for India. It is the finality of this Measure which is the real stumbling block in India to-day. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms in 1919 were a step forward. At the time I welcomed them as a step forward. When they were going through the House we did our best to democratise those reforms, and when they came to the Third Reading we urged India to accept them as a stage in a long advance. Now we are asked to pass a Bill which is not a stage anywhere, but is the final end, so far as this House is concerned, and so far as democracy in India is concerned. After we have passed this Bill, involving as it does a treaty with a large number of individual Princes, we cannot change it or introduce a new Bill with a more democratic franchise. That is impossible unless, as I read it, every single one of the Princes who come into the scheme now—is not that so?

Sir S. HOARE: The Under-Secretary will answer.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I would prefer to have an answer from the Secretary of State, of course, and that with no disrespect to the Under-Secretary. That is the point: How will it be possible to avoid this being the final stage? If the
Princes say that this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament is to be their new treaty, guaranteed at the accession of every new Sovereign in England, how are we ever to go forward any further? In any case it will be impossible, even under the Instrument of Instructions, for this House to modify the scheme unless the Indian Assembly set up by this Bill wishes for the modification. I do not think anyone can gainsay the fact that the Assembly set up under this Bill will be far more conservative than anything we have known in the history of this country. The representatives of the Princes correspond to nothing we have ever had in this country, being nominated by one person, and not even transferable by sale or purchase. One-third of each House is nominated by the Princes. Of the rest of the House, there will be a certain number elected by the provincial legislatures. We all know here that indirect election leads, perhaps, to more conservatism than direct election; but, apart from that, we know perfectly well that in that new Assembly the elected members can never be in a majority, because of the large element of nominated members—nominated by the Government, representing the special classes, and those elected by the chambers of commerce and by the Anglo-Indians and other sections of the community. It is impossible that an Assembly constituted in that way should vote for its own abolition and for the substitution of anything better, even if the Government did have, as I believe, to get the consent of all the Princes, or, perhaps we shall, hear the majority of the Princes. That is the principal objection to the Federation. It is impossible to have federation except on the terms set out by the Princes, and once that federation is established it becomes a treaty.
The next objection is that we are setting up a federation which is, in fact, nothing of the sort. This is not a federation, but a union on dissimilar terms of completely dissimilar units. I do not pose as a constitutional lawyer, but I would like to give the opinion of one who is admittedly the greatest constitutional authority in this country on matters of the Empire at large, and that is Mr. Berriedale Keith:
I am satisfied that the system of construction of the Federation, under which
the nominees of autocratic rulers are to have a powerful voice in both Houses of the Federation, in order to counteract Indian democracy, is quite indefensible. Whether in practice it works out as the Government and the Princes hope may be doubted, but the whole project seems to me to be indefensible. I should have proposed Federation only for units which were themselves under responsible government, and have admitted the Princes only on condition that they gave their States constitutions leading up to responsible government, and that their representatives in both Houses of the Central Legislature were elected by the people of the States.
That seems to me to be a position which no British Government in this country, unless seeking something entirely apart from the sort of government we should like to be under ourselves, could possibly tolerate. Do the Committee really understand what this Federation will be when it is created? It will be an anomalous body, consisting partly of people democratically representing British India and partly of people nominated by the Princes. That is not all. When the Assembly has chosen its government the laws it will pass and the administration it carries out will affect British India but will not affect the Indian States at all. Income tax may be imposed and the Princes may vote for the Income Tax, but it will not be levied in their States, they will be immune. I believe that most oppressive tax in India, the salt tax, is to be a federal tax, and from that tax the Indian States are exempt.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I hops the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not go too much into details. Those questions really arise on the next Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I am dealing with the inequity of a federation which is not a federation, and I think one of the chief objections is that we are setting up a government under this scheme which legislates for a part of India and which is ruled, in part, if not entirely, by people who are not submitting to the laws they pass. I do not think that with this Federation you will get much legislation of any sort in that central body, but I am certain that the constitution of the federal body will exalt in importance, and I hope lead to the development of, the Provincial Governments. The second objection therefore is that it is an inequitable federation.
The third objection is that under the scheme we withdraw our protection from
the 70,000,000 inhabitants of the Indian States. Up till now, whenever there has been trouble, we have been in a position to protect the natives of the Indian States. In Kashmir recently, and in Indore we managed to change the Princes; also in Alwar recently. Whenever there has been exceptionally bad government by any native prince, under our present Constitution we can make the necessary change to secure justice for those 70, 000,000 people. The position of those people to-day is that they are not British subjects, and they have not the rights that people have in British India. No one who has the right of being called a subject in British India would voluntarily revert to being a native of an Indian State. Hon. Members may have noticed in the last half-dozen years—it goes back even further than that—the bitter resentment of the people in the Berars at the idea of being handed back to the Nizam of Hyderabad. So far they have successfully resisted being deprived of their British citizenship and put back to the position of subjects of an Indian State, and exactly the same thing happened at Bangalore and Tangasseri. In fact, wherever in the wide world you find a man with the rights and privileges of a British citizen he resents bitterly having those rights taken away from him and being returned to any other form of rule.
Here for all time we are saying that the native States shall remain as they are. We are depriving them in the British Indian Assembly of the right of asking questions as to happenings in the Indian States. The whole protection which has been given—it has been a poor protection but some protection—is being taken away. One of the chief charges against Warren Hastings was that he used the British Army for supporting one Indian rajah against another Indian rajah and here are we putting the British Army into the power of the Princes of India and giving to it the duty of maintaining law and order and things as they are, not only in British India but in native territories. It will be disgraceful to employ British armies in putting down people like those tenants who struck in Alwar or those unfortunate Moslems up in Kashmir. We ought not to be in the position of putting British men and officers under the orders of people who may use them under this Bill for
work which we should never force them to do. As long as there is British administration in India the British Army cannot he used for any purpose with which this House disagrees.
You are therefore for all time preventing India from going forward, subjecting British Indians to the rule of the native Princes and preventing any possibility of any development in a democratic direction for all the inhabitants of the native States. It is true, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones) said, that there are some native States, Mysore, Travancore, Cochin and Baroda where education is growing, but in none of those native States is there anything like the same amount of self-government as in British India. There are representative institutions with no responsibility; they are purely advisory bodies. No native inhabitant in any native State in India has the same rights, privileges and opportunities as the native has across the border in British India. We make a great deal of fuss about depriving British subjects of their citizenship in Tanganyika and elsewhere, but we are for all time depriving 70,000,000, many of them educated and particularly the inhabitants of Travancore in the south of ever arriving at a situation where they can call themselves British subjects.
Those are the three arguments against federation which I would like to have met. The case for it, as I understand it, is not quite honest. The case is that if we establish Federation we at any rate secure stability. There is on the Government Benches, and not upon the Government Front Bench only, terror lest the Labour party should come into office and do something for India which no man in his senses would dream of, giving them self-government or an opportunity pf breaking away from the British Empire. I have known the Labour party now for a good many years, and I am confident that you will get more continuity from the Labour party than from the Liberal party. I was in the Labour Cabinet when we had these Indian discussions, and we are as convinced as any hon. Member opposite that it is our duty to protect the working class in India, and that by retaining some sort of control here we are in a better position to protect them than if we hand them over to the millionaires and landlords of India. Basing ourselves upon that, there is no sort of
fear that we shall sell the pass, betray this country or betray the common people of India.
It is the popular thesis and the theory in the India Office, and it is very largely held among English civilians in India, that the real danger is that when you get a Labour party in office they will endow Communism in India and establish Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru as dictator—

The CHAIRMAN: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting rather far away from the Clause.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The secret case in favour of federation is that that way lies safety. I think that all hon. Members realise that there is no safety in this method, and that so far as safety is concerned you cannot have it in this world unless you have consent. Until we get the consent of India, it is no use thinking that this proceeding will make the situation any better.
I pass on to what is the surprising thing at the present day. Six months ago there was no general feeling in India against federation. There were of course individuals, but we may take it that Congress as well as the Moslems, while they differed very strongly on the question of communal representation, agreed with the idea of federation. Whether there was a bargain between Congress and the Princes I do not know, and I do not care; that is a matter of no importance. There was a general opinion that this would mean a step forward. Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with Indian opinion realises that there has now been a complete revolution of feeling, and that it has come about in the last six months not because the Joint Select Committee's report was otherwise than expected, not because the Government's Bill varies from the Joint Select Committee's report, but because there is a far better understanding of what federation means. The objections to the final step, the objections to being under control, the sealing of the fate of the inhabitants of the native States—all these things have not been realised before. Now that federation has come to be understood, you have the remarkable fact that the real change has been in the opinions of the Mohammedans as regards these reforms. You now have a solid body of 19 Mohammedan members in the
assembly, all under the command of a man called Jinnah. Jinnah is one of the finest politicians in India. He is a personal friend of my own, and a man whose opinion I value immensely. Generally speaking, when there is a clash between Mohammedans and Hindus, I come down on the side of the Hindu as against the Mohammedan, but in Jinnah I make an exception. He is what he should bean Indian first, and everything else second. He has been made anti-English by foolish actions long ago, but recently the situation has been made far worse owing to the fact that the India Office and the officials seem to think that Jinnah does not count.

Sir S. HOARE: Why do you say that?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He was not allowed on the Round Table Conference, and he was not allowed on the Statutory Committee. He was very anxious to be on the Statutory Committee. He came over here, and was very anxious to help, but was cold-shouldered. The attitude towards him is that he does not matter, that he is not in touch with Mohammedan sentiment, that he does not represent Mohammedans, and therefore he has bean ruled out. That opinion may be quite wrong, but it is the opinion that he has, and it should be put right if it is possible to do so. In the "Times" of Saturday a telegram was published, containing all the news that we have on the subject. It was to the effect that the Mohammedans and the Hindus, shedding extremists on both sides, are coming together on this question. If the Mohammedan and the Hindu are coming together on this issue, and if they are, as the "Times" suggests, prepared to drop the question of separate electorates and to have one common electoral roll, that is an extraordinary change in Mohammedan opinion. It is true that the Mohammedans are bargaining for as many offices as they can get, but they are coming together and agreeing to a common electoral roll. That shows, not only a realisation of the advantage to India of the possibilities of democracy, but the possibility of a combination against federation which it will be enormously important for the Government to consider now. It makes the whole outlook on the future working of the assembly entirely different.
For these reasons, I am against federation. It is the feature of the reforms
which, with communal representation, I consider to be the most reactionary and to justify all the opposition that the Indians can offer. It is possible to remedy both, even at this last moment, if you will confine your federation to those Princes who come in from representative institutions and to British India. It is possible also, if you, will allow the Indians to agree together to abolish separate representation of Hindus and Mohammedans, and come in on a common basis of Indian citizenship.

9.10 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): I had thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervened in this Debate after it bad run for some little period. The Debate on this Clause has now run for something over an hour, and it is not my fault that I am only able to answer three speeches. I should have liked to refer to some of the other arguments which might have been raised, but it is important that I should answer the arguments that have been raised in those three speeches. I hope that after that it may be possible for the Committee to come to a decision on the Clause standing part, since we have discussed it so many times, but there is no intention on our part to stop any Member expressing himself on this important issue.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) raised some very important points, of which I shall try to answer one or two. He claimed specifically that the Princes were able to block any future Amendment of the franchise scheme under the Bill as we have presented it. I think that that implies a misunderstanding of the provisions of the Bill. Under Clause 285, it is possible for the Indian legislature to present an address, which the Secretary of State is under a statutory obligation to consider and give his opinion on, after a period of 10 years, and I see no reason why the States should block any Amendment of the franchise scheme under the provisions of that Clause. Apart from that, His Majesty's Government, before the period of 10 years, will have the power of amending the franchise scheme if necessary by order-in-council. Therefore, I fail to see why the Princes of India and the Indian States should hold up any Amendment of the franchise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would a lowering of the franchise, or an alteration to a common roll instead of two separate rolls, be within the power of the House of Commons irrespective of a vote of the Indian Assembly?

Mr. BUTLER: It would be possible for His Majesty's Government to alter the franchise by order-in-council. With regard to the communal award, I must refer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to the terms of the award itself, and I do not think I had better get into a discussion upon it at the present moment. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman also raised the question that we were withdrawing protection from the subjects of the Indian States, and he asked whether in the future, if there were oppression in Indian States, the power of His Majesty's Government would have been completely withdrawn by the provisions of the Bill. He drew rather a sad picture of the possible future of the citizens of an Indian State under the provisions of the Bill. He was, however, suffering under a complete misapprehension of the actual position as it will be under the Bill. The right of paramountcy exercised at present on such occasions will not be altered by the introduction of the Bill or by its provisions, and therefore I think that his difficulty in relation to the citizens of an Indian State—

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will it be possible to ask questions in tike House of Commons on the subject?

Mr. BUTLER: The position will be exactly the same as it is at present in relation to this subject. I hope that on these two points I have done something to set the doubts and fears of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman at rest. He then proceeded to develop the view that the Federation, and especially the constitution of the central legislature, would be undemocratic. I will take that objection together with the objections of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who opened this discussion. It has been frequently claimed that in introducing the Bill we are not considering the welfare of the masses of India. I think it is possible to answer that contention in several ways, but I wish to be as brief as possible, and will only remind the Committee that the con
stitution of the central legislature will have in it democratic elements to a much greater extent than at present. I would remind hon. Members opposite that there will he special representatives of labour—an entirely new proposition—in the central legislature as we propose it in this Bill. There will also be 19 representatives of the depressed classes, and, since the depressed classes are drawn very largely from the classes who depend upon manual labour, in both town and country, I think it is certain that the representatives of the depressed classes and the representatives of labour will, to a very much larger extent than ever before, voice the opinions of the masses in the central legislature.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that, owing to the fact that we were combining in the central legislature nominees of the States with democratic representation of British India, there would be no opportunity for real social reform and real development, and that the interests of the masses would be ignored for this reason. I fail to see why, because representatives of the Indian States are introduced into the central legislature, it necessarily means that the interests of the masses are to be ignored. For instance, one point on which the masses will feel very strongly is the question of Customs. The majority of the Indian States are agricultural and their interest lies in the reduction of the tariffs. If they take part in the proceedings of the Federal Legislature and in deciding the future tariff policy of India, their intervention can only be in the interests of the agricultural masses.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The hon. Gentleman will allow us to remember that the reduction of the tariff is in the interests of the masses of the people.

Mr. BUTLER: I am considering the question from the point of view of the citizens of India, and I believe in this case it will be to their advantage. As regards social reform, we believe that the constitution of the Federal Legislature will help in the discussion of measures for social reform. The Joint Select Committee thought that one of the main reasons for the development of this Constitution was that it would give opportunity for social reform in the future. The hon. Gentleman, I think,
referred to the possibility of legislation not only in subjects on the federal list but also in subjects on the concurrent list, and to that extent, especially in regard to the concurrent list, Part 2, which specially affects labour questions, there are special provisions in the Bill which I hope will be fully made use of in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) raised the large question as to whether it was just, if it was possible, to develop provincial autonomy without having some nexus in the Federal Government. I think I should be wise to refer him to the powerful arguments in the introduction to the report of the Joint Select Committee. We hold very strongly that we have given to India a great unity which it is essential to preserve and, whether in the matters to which I referred, such as social legislation and the use of the concurrent list, or whether in other ways we feel that it would be much easier to preserve the unity of India by the establishment of federation. Moreover, owing to the inter-action, both economic and political, of the interests of the States and the Provinces of India, which interlock with each other to a surprising degree—not unlike one English county with another—we consider that a federal Government is the most suitable form of nexus that can be devised owing to the approximation of interests between those two parts of India. It is for these reasons that we hope the Committee may come to a decision on the point, and I hope I have done something to answer some of the points that have been raised.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. DONNER: I do not often find myself in agreement with the Secretary of State, but when earlier to-day he said that the Princes of India had not changed their position in relation to federation I could not but concur with him. As far as I understand it, their position has never changed at all. At the first Round Table Conference eight out of the twelve Princes who made a statement in favour of federation were not accredited representatives of the 562 Princes of India. They could only speak for themselves and, as far as I know, they made no attempt to speak for anyone else. I can say without fear of contradiction that the majority of the Princes have never declared in favour of federation
and, if to-day the Government find themselves in a dilemma on account of the fundamental objections which the Princes of India have stated, it is their fault and not ours, because we, at any rate, who have opposed these proposals, have been at great pains for the last two years to point out how unlikely it was that the Princes would ever declare in favour of federation. I have asked again and again, on the Floor of this House, if it is not a fact that additional and essential safeguards were required by the Princes which were not included either in the White Paper or, late on, in the majority report. We were always brushed aside as untouchables. Conservatives who oppose these proposals are, indeed, untouchables in this House. The Attorney-General to-night spoke of us with the greatest contempt as diehards.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Not untouchables, only depressed classes.

Mr. DONNER: Scheduled castes, if the hon. Gentleman prefers it. Perhaps I may say something about the speech of the hon. Member as he interrupts me. He said, in relation to federation, that we had not a clean slate to write on, that for many generations people have written on that slate. I understand that he is a keen student of Cromwell. Even Cromwell would have been horrified at the slate in India being scribbled over, or squirted over, with Liberal principles. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) admitted that, at any rate, those Conservatives who are opposed to the idea of an All-India Federation had at least one-third of the voters in the country behind them. Whatever may be said for Liberal principles, it cannot be claimed that they have any great support in the country. The hon. Member went on to say that those who are opposed to this conception of an All-India Federation are delighted at the news to-day that the Princes had stated that they had fundamental objections. If we believe federation a dangerous and evil thing, are we not entitled to be pleased?

The CHAIRMAN: That is getting into the subject of a Debate which has been finished.

Mr. DONNER: I apologise if I went beyond the bounds of order, but this was raised earlier this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes, but in another Debate, I mast remind the hon. Member.

Mr. DONNER: I understood that the subject was the same. I will not pursue the subject if I am out of order. On the question of the establishment of an All-India Federation, to which I believe the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Isaac Foot) referred, I think he said Conservative opponents had used pressure on the Princes in order to ensure their opposition to federation. I must say that I was surprised that he used that word, for, after all, the Prime Minister of Hyderabad, Sir Akbar Hydari, said in evidence before the Joint Select Committee that the Secretary of State had "held the States relentlessly to federation."

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that a speech was made by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) in which be specifically referred to that passage in the speech of the Prime Minister, who requested that if that passage were quoted, it should be taken in its full text, for then it denied the implications?

Mr. DONNER: I have read the evidence carefully and am convinced only one construction can be placed on it. However that may be, I am surprised he should use the word "pressure." I thought that in this House it was quite taboo, and that whenever we talked about it we should use the words "persuasion" or "advice." I do not think, whatever our views may be about the establishment of an All-India Federation, that anyone in this House can deny that an entirely new situation has arisen as a result of the declaration which reached us to-day. I do not believe it is true to say that the whole question of the future of federation is not in the balance. These are not matters of adjustment, but of fundamental objections. I do not think it is a compliment to the Princes of India to state, as I think the Secretary of State did or some other hon. Member—I may be doing him an injustice—that this was a declaration without sufficient consideration and deliberation.

The CHAIRMAN: Really we have had several hours debate on the Motion to report Progress. We really cannot take that subject over again.

Mr. DONNER: I must apologise again. I did not intend to break the rules of Procedure. I will try to keep more closely to the question of federation. The deeper one goes into this question of federation, the more we consult ex-governors and men of administrative experience in India, the uneasier some of us have become in our minds. We do not ask for assertion, or for brilliant Parliamentary repartee or suave statements. We would like to see more arguments and answers to arguments we have put forward against the proposals. The friends with whom I have been associated have put forward many arguments, and we are not satisfied in our minds. Yet I hope we are reasonable people who are open to persuasion. I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that, although I am a back bencher, and can therefore claim no special indulgence, he has never once answered one argument I have put tin the Floor of the House during the last two years. I do not in any way criticise him on that account, but I do say that the fact that the arguments against the establishment of an All-India Federation have not been answered leaves us uneasy in our minds.
The Government say that you cannot extend autonomy to the Provinces in India without the establishment of an all-India Federation. It has been our case all along that such an argument is abject nonsense. The Government case is that provincial autonomy without federation will bring about great centrifugal and powerful movements which will endanger the constitution. Therefore they say the Centre must be changed. But how do you strengthen the Centre or minimise these centrifugal forces by giving away half the powers at the Centre? Do the Government still stick to that theory, still take that view if the objections of the Princes to establishment of a federation hold good, still take the line that provincial autonomy cannot be established without a federation? It has been suggested that if just over 50 or 51 per cent. of the Princes came into an all-India Federation, then the other 49 per cent. would be coerced. When my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) made that statement yesterday, he was answered by the Government supporters, who, like a Roman
army without the legions—they were all generals and camp-followers—and voted down. The right hon. Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery), one of the generals, and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Molson), one of the camp-followers, took him to task. On this matter we cannot do better than find out what is counsel's opinion, the legal opinion given to the Princes of India on 17th October of last year and published in the "Madras Mail." Counsel's opinion in regard to the position of the Princes who abstained from federation was that the
thumbscrew of political pressure would be tightened on non-federatng thumbs.
If you are going to build this great all-India Federation, where are the bricks and the mortar? Surely the basis will consist of three conflicting currents of hostility—the Princes—if they come in—against modern government, Hindus against Moslems, martial races against sheltered races. This will be a blending of fire and water that has never been done before. The Government may come along and say that they have made a miraculous discovery, thanks to the good offices of the Fuel Research Board, of how to blend fire and water. They may come and say that they hope this federation will be a success. I notice that, in his evidence before the Joint Select Committee, the Secretary of State used the words "I hope" more than 200 times. He hoped that the Princes might come in. He hopes their objections can be adjusted. He hopes federation will be a success. He may be right. I suggest that he is living in a permanent condition of optimistic expectancy not at all warranted by the facts. Political arrangements not based on the true proportions of actual power cannot bring a federation into power, or make it a success once it is established. You cannot establish federation by giving domination in the central legislature and in the provincial governments to the Hindu politicians shielded by British military power, when that domination will never be accepted by the fighting and martial races, by the Mohammedans.
I do not wish to weary the Committee with quotations. I have many statements in my possession of Mohammedan leaders which state quite plainly that they will not accept Hindu domination in an All-India Federation, and will never accept the Hindu Raj. That is the long and short of it, nor is it surprising; if
we look back on Indian history we see six and a-half centuries of Imperial tradition among the Mohammedans. When we read the story of Mohammedan rule in India of over six and a-half centuries, it is surely asking too much from them to expect them to enter a federation and accept Hindu domination which they have never done before in their history.
I believe that one of the inherent weaknesses in this federal scheme is that those who enter it are approaching it from a very different point of view and envisage a very different outcome to it. The Provinces are going to enter this Federation from the point of view of regarding it as a prelude to still greater advance. In fact, many British-India delegations and delegates have said that they consider that the Indian States should have no say in questions relating to the Provinces alone, and should exercise the least possible influence on them, whereas, on the other hand, the Indian States regard this establishment as a final move and desire to see no further departure from the conditions created by this Bill within the realm of practical politics, and for a very long time to come. I have here a quotation from the evidence given by Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru, who, though he admits that he cannot impose his views on the Indian States, says:
I am strongly of opinion that one result, among others, of the association of British India and Indian States in the field of common activities in the Federal Legislature will be to facilitate the passage of the Indian States from their present form of autocratic government…to a constitutional form.
If that is the point of view of some politicians in the British India Provinces, it is exactly contrary to the view which is held by Indian States, and what is more, although this declaration is coupled with the most careful assurances of noninterference 'and avowals of inability to interfere with the internal affairs of the Indian States, the underlying threat is there, and is plain to see. In conclusion, I submit that a federation which is entered into by such reluctant and mutually suspicious units with such conflicting reservations and such opposite ends in view is a federation which, if it ever comes about, will do so in circumstances of an inauspicious nature. I appeal to the Government, in view of recent happenings, that they will at this eleventh, or even twelfth hour, withdraw
the federal Clauses of this Bill and consider whether there is not a way out after all, a way not based upon the form of government to which we are accustomed, a Western democratic form, but a form of government which is understood in the East, an Oriental form and one which unlike these proposals will work.

9.40 p.m.

Lord SCONE: Those of us in the Conservative party who are opposed to the Indian policy of the Government have no desire whatever to take up more of the time of the Committee than is absolutely necessary, but the point of federation with which we are now dealing is so really vital to the whole scheme of Indian self-government that we do not feel called upon to apologise for ventilating this subject for a few minutes longer. We have never yet had a proper explanation as to why it was suddenly decided that one could not have federation in India without the adherence of the Princes. That was a complete volte face, and one, I submit, which has never been satisfactorily explained. You. Sir, have ruled that certain recent events have been so sufficiently discussed this afternoon that we cannot do more than pass lightly over them now. I will content myself with saying that there seems at the present time to be little reason to suppose that the Indian Princes are going to show any inclination to enter Federation in the future, and as, as far as we can see, their entry is a sine qua non of the policy of the Government, there seems to be little use in passing these Clauses dealing with federation if the whole thing is to be upset by the non-adherence of the Princes.
I should like to say a word of reply to the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Morgan Jones), who, I regret, is not in his place at the moment, when he complained that no mention was made throughout the debates of the working people of India. It is quite true that, as far as representatives of the Government are concerned, these references are few and far between, but if the hon. Member for Caerphilly and his friends will take the trouble to look at the speeches of the Conservative Opposition they will find that again and again anxious mention is made of the future welfare of the common people of India. My hon. Friend the Member for West Islington
(Mr. Donner) spoke on that subject a few days ago, the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and I myself both mentioned it in our speeches on the report of the Joint Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Caerphilly will find that there is a great deal more genuine interest. as to the fate of the common people of India on these benches than upon their benches.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is very much perturbed because, he said, at the mention of the Princes everyone seemed to become upset. Let me assure him on this point that we have not been talking about the Princes so much because we considered their interests to be more vital than those of anybody else, but simply from the constitutional point of view, that the proposed Federation is impossible without their adherence and therefore we have been obliged to discuss whether they are likely to come into the Federation, and, if so, on what terms. As has already been said, it is the duty of this House to consider the whole of the people of India, Princes and peasants alike, and that is what we in our humble way are endeavouring to do.
I will now say in a few words why we object so strongly to this Federation. Of what is the Federation to consist? A number of Provinces on which we are about to confer the very doubtful advantage of a more or less democratic form of government. Democratic government is practically unknown in the East, and in most places its very significance is either not understood or not appreciated. Surely it is a sufficient risk to set up a large number of autonomous Provinces under a new form of democratic constitution without running the infinitely greater risk of giving a more or less democratic constitution at the Centre as well. Surely it would be wiser to try this new democratic experiment among a few Provinces at first, or even among the whole of the Provinces before you try to set up a central democratic constition at the same time. A collapse in one Province would be serious and a collapse in several Provinces would be very serious, but if you get a simultaneous collapse at the Centre and in the Provinces, the position of India, and
more especially of the common people of India, would be very grave indeed.
There is much more that I could say, btu I hope that I have said enough to show that we are not opposing the Federation for any factious reason, but simply because we are convinced that should it take place it will not be in the interests of India and of Indians. Moreover, we regard it as a waste of time to set up a complicated federal system when there is every likelihood that federation will never come into being, because of the non-adherences of the Princes, the probability of which has been shown so clearly to-day.

The CHAIRMAN: If the Committee would allow me, I should like to make an appeal. I notice that one or two hon. Members who have risen are hon. Members who took a considerable part in Debate on the Clause. So far as I have been in the Chair, the Debate has been almost entirely a repetition of what was previously said.

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: May I say that this is the third of the six days allotted to this part of the Bill. We are on Clause 5 and there are a great number of most important matters to be reached within the six days. I hope that that fact will be borne in mind.

Mr. WISE: Further to the point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: I have not raised the matter as a point of Order. I appealed to the Committee. I have no power to do anything else. If the Committee insists on talking, it is my business to carry on my ordinary duties, but I thought that in the circumstances it might be as well for me to say what I did.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: On that point of Order—

The CHAIRMAN: It is not a point of Order, and I do not intend that my remarks shall be discussed.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I will not delay the House for more than a minute or so. There is a point, mainly of drafting, which is of some substance in Clause 5. It states that His Majesty after receiving an Address from both Houses may declare that the Federation shall come
into being on a certain appointed day, providing that one condition is fulfilled, and that condition is that the Rulers of States, who are entitled to 52 seats, representing an aggregate population equal at least to one-half of the total population of the States, have acceded to the Federation. I do not think the Federation comes into being until the day appointed by His Majesty, and it seems to me that it is not possible for the Rulers of the States to accede to a federation that is not in being. The Secretary of State may say that in Clause 6 there is a provision that a State shall be deemed to have acceded to the Federation if certain conditions are fulfilled, and His Majesty has signified his acceptance of a declaration in due form by the ruler thereof, but I do not think that you can accede to a federation which is not in existence until an appointed day any more than you can become a member of a club that is not yet in existence. It seems to me—I hope the Secretary of State will correct me if I am wrong—that the words at the end of Clause 5 should read something like this: "Provided that the States have signified their intention to accede to the Federation." I should be very grateful for an assurance from the Secretary of State on that particular point.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): We will certainly look into the point again, but if my hon. Friend will look at the opening words of Clause 6 he will see that:
The State shall be deemed to hare acceded to Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of a declaration made by the Ruler thereof.
We will certainly look into the point.

Mr. PETHERICK: I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that you can accede to a non-existing federation or be taken to accede to a non-existing federation.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. BAILEY: The learned Attorney-General told us that it was through the fullness of discussion that we could elucidate these problems. Therefore on this important question of federation, which affects the future of a whole continent, I am sure the Committee would not mind sitting beyond eleven o'clock. This question of federation goes to the root of the whole matter. I am absolutely in sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. Donner)
when he said that to none of our criticisms can we get a satisfactory answer. We are constantly being met with some cheap jibe, or if we raise a serious point we are told that we are opponents of the National Government. We are not, but we have some very solid and substantial criticism on this question of federation and we think that we are entitled to have an answer.
We have been told for the last three or four years by the Secretary of State that the Government's acceptance of the principle of federation was entirely dependent upon the attitude of the Princes. I make no apology for referring to that point again, for the reason that we have not yet had an answer from the Government as to whether they are going on with this scheme if the Princes refuse to come into it. Seeing that we have the Prime Minister present, who can presumably speak on behalf of the Government, we might have a definite answer to a perfectly specific question. If the Princes within the next few weeks or the next few days while the Bill is before us are not able to come to a satisfactory arrangement with the Government on the question of federation, are the Government going on with their federation proposals? Before we leave the question of federation we have a right to an answer on that question. Otherwise, the whole of the arguments by which the Government have been forcing this matter through on the federation issue fall to the ground.
If we are going on without the Princes coming in and without their acceptance of it, what becomes of the Government's argument that the adhesion of the Princes has changed the whole position? If the Secretary of State would answer that one question I should feel that my observations had not been entirely in vain. I will give way if the right hon. Gentleman will answer that question. I have sat down, but the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to answer the point. I can quite understand why he does not want to answer. It is because he cannot. The Government have completely changed their attitude on this question, as on so many other questions during the last few weeks. They go on calling themselves a National Government but they cannot stand their ground on a single public issue. I call it a National Government but I am rapidly
coming to the conclusion that it is not national and that A is not much of a government at all. I do not want to allow my very natural feelings to overcome me. [HON. MEMBERS "Hear, hear."] I do not welcome applause from the other side of the House.
The Government must not blame us. We have warned them again and again as to where they were leading the country. We cannot help doing this sort of thing. They are driving us to a crisis and splitting their own party because they will not stand by their own principles. They go from one set of principles to another in order to give concessions to their opponents. Hon. Members can laugh, as much as they like, what I am saying is perfectly true. Laughter very often conceals great bitterness of heart. It is high time, when the future of our great Indian Empire is concerned, that the Government, on the question of federation, stood by the principles they have been laying down for years. I again challenge the right hon. Gentleman: Did he or did he not say that the acceptance of the Princes of a scheme of federation was essential? Having said that, does he adhere to it? If the Princes do not come in is he going to drop it while there is yet time? None of our criticisms on the question of federation have been answered, and our attitude has been grossly misrepresented. We are called Diehards. Why should we not call them White Flaggers? That sort of stuff gets you nowhere.

The CHAIRMAN: And I do not think it has to do with the question of Clause 3 standing part of the Bill.

Mr. BAILEY: There is one final point I desire to raise. We are constantly misrepresented on the question of federation. We are told that it is all a question of faith. Our attitude is that we are prepared to go a certain distance with autonomy in the Provinces without federation, not because we like to go that distance and not because we think it is for the good of India, but because we have been pledged and committed by the policy of previous Governments. We are prepared to make that experiment. We object to the federation proposals because we feel that, just as the right hon. Gentleman is being driven from the position he took up a little while ago, we shall also be driven from position after position until we shall have completely lost our hold on India, and shall not be able to recover because we shall have been driven out of the country lock, stock and barrel. For the last time to-night we are in a position to express our protest against a policy which we believe is ultimately going to result in a loss of prosperity to our people and the dismemberment of our great Empire, which has taken centuries to build up; and we are ashamed that the party to which we belong and a Government calling itself a National Government should have constituted itself the vehicle for carrying out such a shameful policy of abdication and surrender of our Imperial trust.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 246; Noes, 78.

Division No. 63.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds W.)
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard


Albery, Irving James
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Culverwell, Cyril Tom


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (L' pool, W.)
Burghley, Lord
Dalkeith, Earl of


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S
Campbell, Vice-Admiral G. (Burnley)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Dickie, John P


Aske, Sir Robert William
Cautley, Sir Henry S
Doran, Edward


Assheton, Ralph
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel


Baillie. Sir Adrian W. M
Cayzer, Maj. Sir H. R. (Prtsmth., S.)
Duggan, Hubert John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Dunglass, Lord


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey


Barclay-Harvey, C. M
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D
Emrys-Evans, P. V


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Colfox, Major William Philip
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard


Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel
Colman, N. C. D
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare


Boulton, W. W
Conant, R. J. E
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W
Cook, Thomas A
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cooper, A. Duff
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)


Braithwalte, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Cranborne, Viscount
Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst


Brass, Captain Sir William
Crooke, J. Smedley
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Croom-Johnson, R. P
Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)


Brocklebank, C. E. R
Crossley, A. C
Fremantle, Sir Francis


Ganzonl, Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Robinson, John Roland


Gibson, Charles Granville
McCorquodale, M, S
Ropner, Colonel L


Gillett, Sir George Masterman
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R, (Seaham)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Glossop, C. W. H
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Glyn, Major Sir Ralph G. C
McEwen, Captain J. H. F
Rothschild, James A. de


Goff, Sir Park
McKle, John Hamilton
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir Edward


Gower, Sir Robert
Magnay, Thomas
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Mander, Geoffrey le M
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B' t side)


Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)
Manningham-Butler, Lt.-Col. Sir M
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R
Rutherford, Sir John Hugo (Liverp'l)


Grimston, R. V
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Salt, Edward W


Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Gunston, Captain D. W
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Meller, sir Richard James
Samuel, M. R. A. (W' ds' wth, Putney)


Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl' nd)
Milne, Charles
Savery, Samuel Servington


Hammersley, Samuel S
Mitchell, Harold P. (Br' tf' d A Chisw' k)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark. Bothwell)


Hanbury, Cecil
Mitcheson, G. G
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Harris, Sir Percy
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale
Shute, Colonel Sir John


Harvey, Major Sir Samuel (Totnes)
Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B, Eyres
Smith, Sir J. Walker-(Barrow-In-F.)


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Smithers, Sir Waldron


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Morgan, Robert H
Somervell, Sir Donald


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univer'tles)
Soper, Richard


Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Muirhead, Lieut.-Colonel A. J
Spencer, Captain Richard A


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Munro, Patrick
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H
Spens, William Patrick


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W' morland)


Hornby, Frank
Normand, Rt. Hon. Wilfrid
Steel-Maltland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Howard, Tom Forrest
North, Edward T
Stevenson, James


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B
O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stones, James


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A
Stourton, Hon. John J


Hurst, Sir Gerald B
Orr Ewing, I. L
Strauss, Edward A


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H
Owen, Major Goronwy
Strickland, Captain W. F


Iveagh, Countess of
Palmer, Francis Noel
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Patrick, Colin M
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray F


Jackson, J. C. (Heywood & Radcliffe)
Peake, Osbert
Sutcliffe, Harold


James, Wing-Com. A. W. H
Pearson, William G
Tate, Mavis Constance


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Peat, Charles U.
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Ker, J. Campbell
Penny, Sir George
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Percy, Lord Eustace
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Kirkpatrick, William M.
Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Train, John


Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Petherick, M
Tree, Ronald


Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W' verh' pt' n, Bilston)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Law Sir Alfred
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L


Leckle, J. A
Pike, Cecil F
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Leech, Dr. J. W
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H
Ward. Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Leighton, Major B, E. P
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S


Lewis, Oswald
Pybus, Sir John
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G


Liddall, Walter S
Radford, E. A
White, Henry Graham


Lindsay, Kenneth (Kilmarnock)
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Wills, Wilfrid D


Lindsay, Noel Ker
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Womersley, Sir Walter


Llewellin, Major John J
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzle (Banff)


Locker-Lampson. Rt. Hn. G. (Wd. Gr' n)
Rea, Walter Russell
Worthington, Dr. John V


Loftus, Pierce C
Reld. James S. C. (Stirling)
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Lumley, Captain Lawrence R
Reld, William Allan (Derby)



Mabane, William
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mac Andrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Rickards, George William
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward and Mr. Blindell


NOES


Acland-Troyte. Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lawson. John James


Alexander, sir William
Dixey, Arthur C. N
Leonard, William


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir William (Armagh)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lunn, William


Bailey, Eric Alfred George
Donner, P. W
McEntee, Valentine L


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Edwards, Charles
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)


Banfield, John William
Emmott, Charles E. G. C
Maltland, Adam


Batey, Joseph
Gardner, Benjamin Walter
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bracken, Brendan
Greene, William P. C
Maxton, James


Bralthwaite, Maj. A. N. (Yorks, E. R.)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milner, Major James


Brocklebank, C. E. R
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Nail, Sir Joseph


Brown. C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Griffiths, George A. (Yorks, W. Riding)
Nathan. Major H. L


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Gritten, w. G. Howard
Nunn, William


Cleary, J. J
Grundy, Thomas W
Oman, Sir Charles William C


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Courtauld, Major John Sewell
Hicks, Ernest George
Raikes, Henry V. A. M


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Reld. David D. (County Down)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H
Keyes, Admiral Sir Roger
Remer, John R


Daggar, George
Kimball. Lawrence
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Scone, Lord




Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Unv., Belfast)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Smith, Tom (Normanton)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Wayland, Sir William A
Wise, Alfred R


Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A. (P'dd' gt'n, S.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joilsh



Templeton, William P
Wells, Sydney Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorp, Linton Theodore
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. John and Mr. Paling

CLAUSE 6.—(Accession of Indian States).

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, to leave out, "a declaration made," and to insert, an instrument of Accession executed."
This is the first of a series of Amendments to the Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I dealt with them all on this Amendment. They are all drafting Amendments in the sense that they do not alter the intention or the substance of the Clause as drafted. They are designed to make the intention clearer and to simplify the original drafting. Earlier to-day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to this Clause, gave an analysis of its main outlines and made a reference to these Amendments. Having regard to that very clear statement, I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat the analysis of the Clause in order to make these drafting Amendments intelligible to the Committee. The Amendments in the first place bring up from Sub-section (7) of the Clause as it was drafted the words, "Instrument of Accession" and make it clear that the Instrument of Accession is the operative document in which what were originally referred to as declarations will in fact be made. So it will be found in the six Amendments that where in the original drafting we found the word "declaration" we substitute the words "Instrument of Accession."
Then there is an Amendment which is designed to make clear what was always intended, namely, the obligation of a State to ensure due effect of the Act within its territory. The obligation of the ruler to ensure due effect within the State is limited to provisions which are applicable to the State by virtue of the Instrument of Accession. The Amendments also rearrange the latter part of Sub-section (1, b) in that part of the Clause which says that the Instrument of Accession will specify which of the matters mentioned in the federal legislative list he accepts as matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for his State and his
subjects. As amended Sub-section (1, b) will stop there, and what is contained in the three latter lines of the original Clause will come in the proviso, and added words, which are in an Amendment to line 38, will also make it clear that the Instrument of Accession will not only specify the subjects in the federal list, subject to any conditions and limitations with regard to that, but also the Instrument of Accession may qualify the provisions of the Act, but only if there are provisions of the Act which expressly authorise their being qualified in that way.

Mr. CHURCHILL: On a point of Order. Are we to take it that we are now discussing not only the Amendment which is actually before the Committee but also the Amendment on page 345 of the paper to which the Solicitor-General has referred?

The CHAIRMAN: The Solicitor-General proposed, I think with the general assent of the Committee, to discuss on this first Government Amendment all the Government Amendments to this Clause. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has pointed out that these Amendments are all related and that they stand together.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Will that have the effect of cutting out the important Amendments which we seek to make in this Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: No. The ordinary course is that those Amendments which are related one to the other are discussed as a whole on the first of them to be moved and that on the ones later the question should be put on each of them as reached without debate. After the general discussion we shall proceed to take the next Amendment which would be called in the ordinary course. Then when we reach the next Government Amendment that will be put to the Committee without further discussion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: This is a complicated matter but I shall do my best to make the point clear. My right hon. Friend explained this afternoon
that the general scheme of the Clause is that the ruler will accede to the Act as a whole dealing with these powers of the Federal Executive. What the ruler does in the Instrument of Accession is, first, to limit the area within which those powers will be exercised, and then with regard to the subjects in the federal list which he agrees to accede to, he will have power to impose conditions and limitations. For instance, there are treaty rights which no one for a moment suggests should be interfered with and which would come within the area of one of the subjects in the federal list. So far, I think the general lay-out of the Clause is clear. In addition to that, I would ask the Committee to look at Clause 124 which deals with the administration of Federal Acts in Indian States. But for this Clause the administrative powers of the Federal Executive would apply completely in respect of any subject which had been acceded to. This Clause provides:
Notwithstanding anything in this Act, agreements may, and, if provision has been made in that behalf by the Instrument of Accession of the State, shall, be made between the Governor-General and the Ruler of a Federated State for entrusting to the Ruler or to his officers functions in relation to the administration in his State of any law of the Federal Legislature which applies therein, but any such agreement shall contain provisions enabling the Governor-General in his discretion to satisfy himself, by inspection or otherwise, that the administration of that law is properly carried out.
There is a Clause which says expressly that a particular limitation in regard to the general application of the Act may be made. In the words which it is proposed to add express reference is made to the fact that provision in the Instrument of Accession may be made in matters of that kind, if the Act expressly authorises their insertion in that place.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Do I understand the Solicitor-General to say that, supposing a Prince accedes in respect of 10 such federal subjects, it is only the Governor-General who can assure himself that the 10 subjects are being properly administered within the State?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I think the hon. Member misunderstood me. In the ordinary case a State, by acceding to 10 subjects, will accede in respect not only of the legislative powers, but of
the administrative powers of the Federation. The Clause to which I refer, Clause 124, is intended to meet the special case of some large State with an efficient administration which puts forward the suggestion that it might itself be allowed to administer one or more subjects in respect of which it accedes. Clause 124 says that such an agreement may be made, but if it is made, then the Governor-General is given the special power of inspection to which I have just referred. Then there is another Amendment. The Committee will see in pararaph (b) in line 34, the word "condition," where it will be found that in the new Amendment in substitution for that word and in other places where the word "condition" occurs, we have added "and limitations." It was thought that treaty matters, for instance, as to which nobody suggests a State could not properly make reservations, are more properly described as limitations than conditions.

Mr. EMMOTT: Is that on the Order Paper?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is where the word occurs in the Clause as now drafted. Those words are taken out of that place, and somewhat similar words come in in another place, and where the word "condition" occurred previously by itself in the Clause, we now put in the words "and limitations." That is a general statement, and if I now refer to these Amendments where they come on the Order Paper, I hope I may be able to make clear what is being done. The first one is at the bottom of page 343 of the Order Paper, and that is in the first category to which I referred. It substitutes the words "an Instrument of Accession executed" for "a declaration made." The Committee will see that in the Clause as originally drafted the Secretary of State is deemed to have acceded to the Federation if His Majesty has signified his acceptance of a declaration made by the Ruler. It was intended that that should be the Instrument of Accession, and we now make that clear by bringing those words up to the top of the Clause. The next Amendment is on page 344, the last but one from the bottom, in page 3, line 33, to leave out from "subjects" to "and" in line 36. Those are the words which I told the Committee we were leaving out
and covering by words which occur later in the proviso. The next group will come on page 345, the second lot of Amendments. The first one is in line 38, to leave out "to this Act." Those words come out, and there are inserted in their place:
to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession.
The Amendment makes clear what was the obvious intention, namely, that the Ruler will only assume
the obligation of ensuring that due effect is given within his State to the provisions of this Act so far as they are applicable therein by virtue of his Instrument of Accession.
In the original draft the words "to this Act" were unqualified. That is just the kind of point that might give rise to misunderstanding in the position as it is. The next Amendment is a long one and substitutes words for "a declaration may be made" in line 39. They cover the ground covered by the last lines of paragraph (b) and make it clear what can be and what cannot be in the Instrument of Accession. It is, perhaps not necessary to read the Amendment as I think I have fairly explained the effect of it. The next Amendment in page 4, line 5, is to effect the substitution of the word "Instrument" for "declaration," and the following one in line 7 is to insert "with or without conditions or limitations" in place of "conditionally or otherwise"; and the others in this group are consequential. In line 19, there is another substitution of the word "Instrument" for "declaration," and in lines 37 and 38 are two more of the same kind. The last one is in page 5, line 1, to leave out Sub-section (7). As the words "Instruments of Accession" have now been brought up to the front of the Clause it is unnecessary for these provisions to remain in Sub-section (7). They have been covered by bringing the words up to the beginning of the Clause and also by the added words in line 38 on page 3.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are all indebted to the learned Solicitor-General for the cogency and the compression of his statement on this series of Amendments; which play an important part in the Government's alterations to the Bill. I feel,
after what my hon. and learned Friend has said, that the Committee is now in full possession of all the points at issue. As we are anxious to get on as rapidly, as possible, I shall not find it necessary to delay the Committee by exploring this matter further, but there are one or two questions I wanted to ask. As far as I am able to throw myself into the full stream of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's discourse, I gather that this series of Amendments is designed to placate the Princes, a very legitimate and a very necessary task, designed to placate them upon the varying and complicated type of their Instruments of Accession. The rather vulgar commonplace word "declaration" has been put into a suitable background, and the expression "Instrument of Accession" is given due prominence. That is the specific Amendment, and it inaugurates a series of Amendments all designed, as I take it, to enable the Secretary of State to go round to these Princes one by one. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will give me his attention. Perhaps he was telling the learned Solicitor-General of something which the latter had forgotten to say. They are all designed to enable my right hon. Friend to go round to these Princes one by one—not having them in a great bunch of 100, as we saw the other day in Bombay—but one by one and take from each according to what he can give—from each according to his power, to each according to his need. It will be a case of an indefinite succession of individual dealings. After all, some will contribute a good deal to the Federation, others may only be able to give very little, but he needs them all, and this Amendment gives him the power to arrange anything that he likes with any Prince in order to gather his force together.
I take it that is the object of the extremely powerful technical exposition from the Solicitor-General. We can quite understand the purpose; although some of us, not having a legal training, may not be able to follow every one of those refinements, yet, nevertheless, the purpose is nakedly clear. It is to enable the right hon. Gentleman to gather his party together among the Princes. But there are one or two questions I must really ask. There must be some limit, some minimum test, before he can say he has got a
Prince. Of course, the larger the party the more generous are the conditions of association, but this is rather a small party, on the narrow verge between the 50 per cent. who we thought were associated with the whole party and the 75 per cent. where a lot of vulgar blackmailing considerations might intrude upon the course of the Imperial Government. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman must have a more or less precise test. I hope he will tell us what is the least concession of individual State rights which he will accept as suitable for the Crown to concur with. I gather we shall have all kinds of Instruments of Accession. Some will come in for a lot, and some for less, and some for hardly anything—some will hardly pay the green fees. At any rate, however they are in there must be some test, and I hope the Secretary of State will tell us quite shortly what it is. I would not wish him to go over all the legal points again. We have got them. Quite shortly, what exactly is the least that will qualify a Prince to he told, on the authority of the Crown, that he has executed an acceptable Instrument of A ecession—I think I have got that right?
Another question which arises is a little more complex, hut I think I can put it without any legal complication. All these Instruments of Accession will be of varying types and varying values. Some will be whole-timers, some half-timers, others will only just chip in for a bit and go away again. All these Instruments of Accession are of varying values. There may be four, five or six different types, or many more. How do those varying values affect the principle of 50 per cent. of the Princes coming in in order to constitute the basis of the federal system? It is obvious that these react upon one another. You cannot count the half-timers as whole-timers. For the purpose of 50 per cent. you cannot count a man who only comes in for one thing or another, and who says, "I come into Federation on this limited liability principle; I quite agree with it as far as that is concerned." You cannot count him as a 100 per cent. factor of the 50 per cent. necessary quota.
These react upon each other, and we are getting into an extremely complicated notation in this matter. I hope the right
hon. Gentleman will tell us quite plainly whether, when he says there must be a 50 per cent. minimum of the Princes by population and territory, as set out in the Bill, he means 50 per cent. bona fide Instruments of Accession and not merely a number of Princes who may have paid a certain lip-service to the principle, although they may have a certain population and territory. Are these obligations to be reciprocal? Is everyone—including those who come in for a very little—also to be excluded from voting in the Debates of the Federal Assembly in respect of matters which they have not, as it were, put into the pool? If you are to carry out this immensely complicated scheme, the like of which was never seen on earth, in Heaven or in the waters under the earth, and will never be seen again after we have finished with it, at least you should lay down the broad principle that no one shall take out of the federal pool more than he puts in, and that no Prince shall take out of the federal pool more than he puts in. I hope I shall be able to have an assurance that that is definitely embodied in the law.
I am sure my right hon. Friend will clear up these points of difficulty which remain over; he really owes it to us to do so. He said earlier in the day that the House had instructed him to produce this Bill, but I think responsibility does not rest entirely upon the House. He forgot to mention that before the House instructed the Government to produce this Bill, the Government instructed the Whips to instruct the House to instruct him to produce exactly the Bill that he requires.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman added the last point, which in substance is the same as that which we have repeatedly put before the Committee. Earlier in the evening I tried to show some reasons why we objected to federation, and among the arguments which I advanced was the last argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) to which I have just referred. It is possible for a Prince to accede to this federation on the basis of one item in the list. It is, of course, possible that the Secretary of State has in his mind some common factor, some common
measure, to which all the Princes must accede. He may have in his mind that a Prince must accept 10 items or 20 items, as the ease may be. If hon. Members look at the list they will see what the items are. I look casually at page 293, And among the subjects is No. 46, State lotteries. If a Prince is prepared to accept, in the federal list, the item of the governance of State lotteries, as a federal subject, does that entitle him, on that basis alone, to become a member of the Federation, and to exercise all the powers that membership of the Federation involves, even to the extent of withstanding any measure of democratic advance in other parts of British India? It is a most important point, which ought to be cleared up, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us to-night, that it is in his mind and in the mind of the Government of India that all the Princes must accede in common to some common list—that there must be a common standard for them all—

Mr. CHURCHILL: A common minimum.

Mr. JONES: Yes, a common minimum. Otherwise, I think that federation is simply a sham. The right hon. Gentleman said this afternoon that he is not going to have a sham federation, but, unless he has a fuller explanation to give to us than he has been able to give so far, it will be a sham federation, because there will be no common standard to which all the Princes must subscribe. My second point is one that I tried to put to the Solicitor-General earlier in an interruption. Supposing that a Prince has acceded in respect, say, of 10 subjects, what is the effect of Clause 124 in relation to this point? If that Prince demands, as the price of his accession, that the administration of the 10 subjects within his State shall be in the hands of State officials, acting, so to speak, in the capacity of agents on behalf of the Federation, do I gather that, once the State officials have become the administrators of the federal laws inside the State on behalf of the Federation, the Central Legislature will have no power itself to supervise the administration of those 10 subjects, but that that supervision is in the hands of the. Governor-General, and not of the Central Legislature? The point is an important one,
because the Central Legislature will supervise the administration inside British India, but may delegate its authority in respect of administration to State officials inside a State, and will then have no direct power itself to see that its federal laws are being properly administered inside those areas, except in so far as the Governor-General satisfies himself that that is the case.
My third point is a rather difficult one. It is in regard to Sub-section (2), where there is a reference to a supplementary declaration. Supposing that a Prince has in the first instance acceded in respect of 10 subjects, and that later, as the Federation seems to progress or begins to be operative, the ruler thinks he would like to hand over the administration of two or three other subjects, does the supplementary declaration include the supplementary subjects which he may want to accept from the federal list? I am afraid I have put the point rather clumsily, but I hope it will be clear to the right hon. Gentleman. There is yet a further question which I should like to put to you, Sir Dennis. I take it that, in discussing these subjects now en masse, as it were, we are taking an all-round discussion on them, but that you will be calling in the proper place the Amendment which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) at the bottom of page 344—In page 3, line 36, after "subject," to insert:
(c) declares that he accepts as matters with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws for his State and his subjects the matters numbered twenty-six, twenty-seven, and twenty-eight in the Concurrent Legislative List, namely:

(i)Factories; regulation of the working of mines, but not including, mineral development;
(ii) Welfare of labour; provident funds, employers' liability, and workmen's Compensation;
(iii) Trade unions; industrial and labour disputes."

The CHAIRMAN: That is so. Perhaps I may repeat what I said just now. Having disposed of this Amendment, we shall take the other Government Amendments when we come to them in. their order without discussion. Sandwiched between those various Government Amendments will come, in their due place, whatever other Amendments on the Order Paper are selected by the Chair.

Sir C. OMAN: Would it be permissible for a Sovereign who has been requested by His Majesty's Government to reside outside his own territories for a time to accede on behalf of himself and his successors and, secondly, is it possible for a regency acting for a minor, who may be 20 years ahead of coming of age, to accede in his name and, if so, will the power of acceding on behalf of these two classes of people be in the hands of the Government?

10.47 p.m.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: May I ask the Secretary of State to make one tilling clear in his reply. There is an Amendment in his name, in Clause 6, page 3, line 39, to leave out "a declaration may be made," and to insert:
an Instrument of Accession may declare that the Ruler accepts this Act subject to such provisions, if any, as may be specified in the Instrument, being provisions which are by this Act expressly authorised to be included in an Instrument of Accession, and that his acceptance of any matter as a matter with respect to which the Federal Legislature may make laws is subject to such conditions and limitations, if any, as may be so specified.
(2) An Instrument of Accession may be executed.
I read this originally in a sense in which I think anyone else might read it, including any Indian Prince, namely, that not only were the permissible provisions all to be specifically authorised in the Act but also that any conditions or limitations which a Prince desired to insert into the Instrument of Accession should also be expressly authorised in the Act. I understand that that is not intended to be the case and that there is no intention to say that the conditions ad limitations of the Instrument of Accession which a Prince may insert are limited to such conditions as are expressly authorised in the Act.

10.48 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: There is one very interesting matter that has just emerged. Do I understand that one of the items to which these Princes are to be invited to subscribe is that of State lotteries? If so, this is a most extraordinary thing—

The CHAIRMAN: I think that question will arise when we come to the list of subjects.

Sir W. DAVISON: As it is one of the items which we are now discussing, which it is necessary for a Prince to subscribe to in order to come into the Federation, surely I am entitled to refer to it and ask the Government whether they really intend that State lotteries should be one of the items to which a Prince shall be invited to subscribe.

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to do that here. Later on, if all goes well, we shall come to where that subject appears in the list, and then will be his opportunity.

Sir W. DAVISON: I was only anxious at the moment to draw attention to it.

10.50 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I will first deal with the point raised by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy), namely, the position with regard to subjects when a State comes up for consideration. They can give their list of federal subjects and can accompany that with conditions or limitations as they desire.

Lord E. PERCY: Whether mentioned in the Act or not?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That is so, whether mentioned in the Act or not. So far as a State is concerned where subjects are qualified by conditions or limitations; with reference to these subjects, that is one thing it can do. It can, in addition, ask for limitations in respect of others, but can only ask for such limitations or provisions as are expressly authorised by the Act.

Mr. D. D. R EID: May I ask whether the Instrument of Accession is not a final document? It must be, definitely.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: The Instrument of Accession is a final form, the result, as everybody will agree, of negotiations. When I was speaking just now I mean to refer, if I did not make myself clear, to the first stage of negotiations, when the State said, "We wilt accede, we would like this condition or limitation to be made if the negotiations go on." My hon. Friend is right in that when the thing comes to be an Instrument of Accession it is a final and complete document.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: I should like to ask one simple question—whether these limitations and conditions that may be asked for apply simply to subjects in List 1 or also to List 3, the concurrent list?

Major NATHAN: I should like to ask what is the machinery for the signing of the Instrument of Accession in the circumstances which seem to me to be contemplated in Sub-section (3), where it is prescribed that a declaration shall not be valid unless it is the declaration of the ruler himself?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not think that arises on this Clause.

Major NATHAN: It is raised in one of the Amendments. There is reference to the acceptance of an Instrument of Accession made by the ruler thereof. The question I am attempting to put to the Secretary of State is, how does the ruler sign or execute the instrument to which reference is made under Sub-section (1)?

The CHAIRMAN: We are not discussing that at all; the Amendment on which that question could have been raised is quite limited in scope. It is quite wrongly raised on the Clause.

Sir H. CROFT: In view of the vital importance of the question, could not the Secretary of State answer first thing to-morrow?

Sir S. HOARE: indicated assent.

Mr. THORP: Is it the view of the Government that the words in Subsection (1, b) would allow a time limit to be placed on the application of the condition?

The CHAIRMAN: That question cannot be taken on this Clause.

Motion made, and Question "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes before Eleven o'Clock.